Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Corals Adapt to Global Warming 87

Posted by michael from the spf-5000 dept.
Chuck1318 writes "Articles in Nature and New Scientist indicate that corals are more adaptable to global warming than previously thought. Large areas of coral reefs had been devastated by bleaching due to the loss of the coral animals' algae partner, which is sensitive to changes in water temperature. Some scientists had projected that coral reefs would all be gone in 20 to 30 years. Now it is found that a more heat-resistant strain of algae is able to colonize the bleached coral, returning them to life."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Corals Adapt to Global Warming More

Corals Adapt to Global Warming

Comments Filter:

  • Once again... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cephyn ( 461066 ) on Thursday August 12, 2004 @12:01PM (#9949611) Homepage
    ...Nature finds a way. The only "downside" to this good news is that people may decide that the environment is very resilient and will care less about preservation and ecological awareness. Yes, earth can bounce back from a lot, but that doesn't mean we should try and stress it from all angles at all times!

    • Re:Once again... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MammaMia ( 764083 ) on Thursday August 12, 2004 @12:27PM (#9949976)
      Exactly what I thought... however, at the end of the article they have this to say:

      "Corals are still threatened by factors such as water pollution and damage caused by fishing. But most of these factors are easier to reverse than climate change, Baker points out, especially if conservation efforts are spurred on by the idea that corals are not doomed by global warming.

      "We may have more time than we thought to put policies in place," he says. "But this argues for us really getting on top of the factors that we can control."

      So, there is still a lot we can do to protect the ones that are surviving, rather than force them to try and adapt to further damage.

    • Re:Once again... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Ayaress ( 662020 ) on Thursday August 12, 2004 @01:15PM (#9950633) Journal
      It finds a way, but not always fast enough. It's fine and dandy that one species has adapted while the climate changes around us, but how many others couldn't adapt to us fast enough?
    • nature will in all(most) cases always find a "way".

      people have this nice thing about having opinions on which way is the best though...

  • Evolution works (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Marxist Hacker 42 ( 638312 ) <seebert42@gmail.com> on Thursday August 12, 2004 @12:30PM (#9950029) Homepage Journal
    It always amazes me how many people believe in evolution, yet still believe major climate change must spell disaster. Almost as bad are the number of people who claim that God couldn't possibly have used evolution to create the species.
    • It is not a major climate change that spells disaster for life, but rather a rapid major climate change that spells disaster for life as we know it. The theory of evolution from Darwin relies on two important premises. First, that evolution occurs over a long period of time (long meaning spanning several generations. Second, that natural selection is not cumulative. This means that selection does not make for better phenotypic expression, but rather that the phenotypic expression being selected is bette

      • Re:Evolution works (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Marxist Hacker 42 ( 638312 ) <seebert42@gmail.com> on Thursday August 12, 2004 @01:04PM (#9950495) Homepage Journal
        Darwin's old fashioned- Gould's theory of evolutionary spurts claims that a beneficial mutation can appear in as little as a single generation- though it takes multiple generations of that mutation being successfull in the environment to survive. With a significantly large population, minor mutations happen all the time; and by killing off competitive phenotypes, the new phenotype is more likely to survive after a rapid major climate change.

        The key words are "life as we know it"- which doesn't exclude "life as we currently don't know it".

        The larger the population, the greater the chance that a suitable phenotype will find a way to survive, just as in the article algae phenotype C dying off gave algae phenotype D a chance to colonize the newfound coral reefs. Phenotype D already existed; probably for many years; but as long as phenotype C survived, it could not take over.

        • Darwin's old fashioned- Gould's theory of evolutionary spurts claims that a beneficial mutation can appear in as little as a single generation- though it takes multiple generations of that mutation being successfull in the environment to survive.

          Could you specify what exactly Gould wrote that contradicted Darwin -- and that was new in evolutionary biology?

          For instance, I thought a mutation by definition happened in an individual organism in a generation? The rest, as much of it as parses, doesn't se

          • I personally do not have a lot of use for evolution, but I know a little about mathematics. The grand systhesis is traditionally describable by a continuous function, and Gould implicitly argues for a discontinuous function. Your point seems to be that at a small enough time scale, traditional approaches are also discontinous. I think that begs the rather far-reaching systemic bias toward continuous functions in the grand systhesis and elsewhere.

            I will troll a bit and say that if the creationist were to
            • Uhm, I really don't get the relevance to my question. What, if anything, is the difference between Gould and the standard evol biology model?

              (I am asking a bit of a trick question. The way, if any, which Gould's position was different from standard evol biology is diffuse. Gould liked it that way. See e.g. for something Gould didn't want to answer...) [ucla.edu]

              Besides that.

              How do you explain that evolutionary algorithms work if you don't think evolution works? You have seen articles discussing evolution of e.

              • I never said evolution is not a nicely pragmatic and successful theory. I said I did not have much use for it in a throwaway as I went on to a criticism from outside its boundaries. But I note an appeal to pragmatism in your response and I do reject that appeal.

                The thing that caught my eye was in a parent post where it seemed to me you were saying the standard theory is in fact discontinuous in the detail, and thus not different than punctuated equilibrium for instance. I think that sort of position cou

                • it seemed to me you were saying the standard theory is in fact discontinuous in the detail, and thus not different than punctuated equilibrium for instance.

                  Again:
                  If you want to discuss differences between the standard evol biological theory and "punctuated equilibrium" and other of Gould's positions -- please define the differences. Give references that aren't just Gould papers/books (especially since he seems to have varied the exact claims over time).

                  That was more or less what I wrote. Now I've w

                  • ah, where is my clue bat.

                    What is wrong with the reference to the Euler controversey? On fundamental issues, you have to go to primary sources anyway. And any of your math friends will have a gloss on this. Some assembly required.

    • Why shouldn't major climate change spell disaster?

      I suffer through allergies and asthma, and as the planet warms up, we'll see bigger spring blooms (in some areas) and greater release of VOC from trees.

      That's just going to suck for me and a lot of other people.
      • But it's not going to kill off the entire species, now is it? In other words, that's an annoyance, not a disaster.

        • Re:Evolution works (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Sepper ( 524857 )
          But it's not going to kill off the entire species, now is it?

          Maybe yes, maybe no. Maybe Species X will disapeer and be replace by Species Y+1. But the problem is, will we know the planet will likely survive a lot of transformations, we may not....

          And thoses transformation may spell doom for eco-diversity, but not life itself. You still have 'life' if there only microbes on the surface of the earth.

          So, yeah, evolution is cool and all, but it has its limits... (If earth get as hot as Venus, for exe
        • Why do I care about the entire species?

          I care about myself.

          Don't you care about yourself?

          I want a better life for myself. Thus my concern with global warming. I've probably got another good 80 years in my life, possibly 100. If I can minimize 80 years of allergies by acting now, I'd be stupid not to.
          • No- in fact, I'm just an individual in a hive. My own survival doesn't matter half as much as the survival of the genome- IF it is fit to survive. That's the ultimate lesson of evolution.

            Whether you believe that lesson or not shows how much you believe in the theory of evolution. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few- or does the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many? Are you a Vulcan or a Randroid?
            • I thought evolution worked on individuals, and not species, in assisting or retarding that individual's reproductive and survival success?

              The needs of the many are fine, but it is the needs of the one that I am responsible for. It's not a choice of either or, but it is no one else's responsibility to look after me.

              So in my belief system, global warming is a threat to me, and as such it is stupid to ignore it. Just like an imminent oncoming car, or a collapsing building around me, I need to care about the
              • ah, now you are into tricky grounds...

                Evolution acts on a SPECIES, but it is affected by the mutation and survival of INDIVIDUALS.

                that is to say this; the definition of evolution is: achange in distribution of phenotypes (or gennotypes -- depending on when we are talking about) within a species. that is to say, if today we look at the species of feild mice and observe that 1% of them are albino and the reast are normal brown and then we look at the species 15 years from now and find that 10% are now albi
                • Yes, and isn't caring about global warming, reducing my suffering from asthma and allergies, and improving the air quality going to help benefit my species, my family, and last but not least myself?
                  • No way of telling, actually. Whether we undergo a rapid climate change now or not, we won't be able to definitively state that we are better/worse off as a result. Who knows what may have popped up under the alternate condition?

                    I recently saw an article that stated that CO2 levels were higher than they had been in the last 420,000 years. Which implies that they may have been higher than now as recently as 420,000 years ago. Which also implies that most hominid evolution took place in conditions more ex

                    • Hmm, maybe. But we can tell what things trigger my asthma, and we can try to see cause and effect relationships...

                      Increased rainfall mean increased spring bloom means increased pollen count, so any atmospheric effect that toes the line in amount of rain is better than one that increases the volume of rain.

                      Likewise increased winds means increased airborne particulates, so any effect that toes the line rather than increase local wind/storm activity...

                      Increased rainfall also mean increased vegetation, which
                    • Yep. Entirely true. As far as it goes.

                      Increased temperatures lead to melting ice-caps, which lead to shutting down Ocean Conveyer, which leads to ice age, which locks up water in glaciers, which leads to more deserts, which leads to LESS things that aggravate your allergies.

                      That's another climate change scenario, that favours you. We won't know which one you have to endure until it happens. And if it never happens, we won't know whether climate change would have helped you or hurt you.

                    • True. There are more local effects we can control though.

                      Smog, via auto pollution. Less auto pollution, less smog, less smog, less asthma. Smog is also correlated to temperature as well!

                      Temperature, ie the heat island effect, determined by local building codes and policies. Besides being cooler and more comfortable, higher temperatures precipitate more release of VOC

                      Higher temperature also means increase in cooling load, which translates to increase in local energy usage... Which means more pollution at
                • Now, this may seems a bit academic becuase even the most absured royal families never had more than 9 full siblings (that is a TON).

                  Well, no. As I recall, one of my great-grandfather's had 11 full siblings. It is not terribly common now, but as recently as early this century, it was relatively common in rural areas.

                  Note that large numbers of full siblings only rarely all reached adulthood - childhood mortality was quite high. But it did happen, now and then.

    • Re:Evolution works (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ayaress ( 662020 ) on Thursday August 12, 2004 @01:27PM (#9950780) Journal
      Its not so much single shocks that pose problems (although, yes, many people do claim so). Global warming will pose more problems for people than animals, I would suspect, since our technology effectively stops us from adapting genetically to changes in circumstance - we can harness fire faster than we can grow fur, invent the wheel faster than we can evolve faster running legs, and discover medicines faster than we can evolve immunities. So, when those technologies fail us, we're left even more defenseless than we were to begin with. Very hot summers in many first-world countries lead to power grid failures because of the excessive drain by air conditioning. When that happens, many people are hospitalized or even killed because of the heat. The reverse happens in cold winters. When diseases develop resistance to our medicines, we get epidemics.
      • And, of course, those able to live with 120 degree heat are largely unaffected by the power outages, and the reverse happens in cold countries.

        Nobody ever said evolution was NICE.
        • But there's no pressure to maintain that. A few bad summers will kill off a great many people with poor heat tolerance, and vice-versa in the winter, but afterwards, the AC comes back on, and heat works again. Evolution requies selective pressure, which we circumvent with technology.

          A more low-level example would be eyesight. A thousand years ago, nearsightedness was almost unheard of in general populations. They couldn't correct for it, and those who had it weren't good for very much. Ever since glasses w
          • Agreed. Though I know of at least one optometrist that claims that this is happening on a small scale even within the eyeball itself for individuals- claims to have a method which slowly reduces the need for glasses through eye exercises. I've yet to research that claim, however.

            • claims to have a method which slowly reduces the need for glasses through eye exercises

              I think that you may be referring to what is called the "Theory of Accommodation".
              A couple of sites with more info: Site 1 [iblindness.org] Site 2 [i-see.org]
              (Caveat: These sites are pushing the method, and so are not necessarily objective about it.)

      • No, very hot summers lead to power grid failures because environmentalist policies have blocked the construction of new power stations.

        We get epidemics because trial lawyers sue pharmaceutical companies into bankrupty on one side, and socialist politicians regulate them to death on the other side, so no new medicines are developed.

        Our technology fails not because it's inadequate to the task, but because the human species has a Lemming instinct in it and periodically succumbs to an irresistable urge to thr
        • We get epidemics because trial lawyers sue pharmaceutical companies into bankrupty on one side, and socialist politicians regulate them to death on the other side, so no new medicines are developed.

          Yea, because pharma is, like, so broke.

        • Re:Evolution works (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          A few problems with your claims:

          For one, environmental controls haven't prevented the creation of new power plants. Consumers in Michigan said recently they could increase their power output in the state 35% within the environmental regulations, even more if they reinstate several nuclear power plants that were shut down because of operational expenses. That would have been more than enough to prevent the brownouts in my area this year, and would have been even enough even during the much worse summers we'
        • No, very hot summers lead to power grid failures because environmentalist policies have blocked the construction of new power stations.

          Actually, I thought that the private electricity cartels tended to restrict supplies to artificially increase prices. (See California, 2001.) Unreliable power infrastructure is the result of basic stinginess, laziness, and greed (see East Coast blackout, 2003) as well as poor regulation of the electricity market. Power is generated where it's cheapest, not where it is n

    • It always amazes me how many people believe in evolution, yet still believe major climate change must spell disaster.

      Emphasis added by me.

      Speaking for myself, as one who beleives in evolution, I beleive that major climate change can or likely will spell disaster. Certainly not must, though.

      And my biggest concern is preventative - if major climate change does cause disaster, then it's likely too late to do anything about it. And then we're fuct.

      • Worse yet- by the time you know that the climate change WILL be major- it's likely too late to do anything about it as well- so why worry?

        There's the old story from America's wild west days about the cowboy who got mad at the local tribe's medicine man. Kidnapped him, took him into town, and hung him by his ankles out of the window of the tallest building in town, and told him "Now, you old Indian, you have a problem". The Medicine Man replied- "No, it is you who has the problem. If you drop me, I die,
    • Almost as bad are the number of people who claim that God couldn't possibly have used evolution to create the species.

      Of course God could've used evolution-- he could've done anything we invent him to have done!

      I can't help wonder though, if it's the Chritian omni-God whom you propose could've used evolution to create species. If so, it brings us to the Problem of Evil:

      If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, he can create species any damn way he pleases.
      If God is benevolent, he would never cause u
      • I can't help wonder though, if it's the Chritian omni-God whom you propose could've used evolution to create species. If so, it brings us to the Problem of Evil:

        If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, he can create species any damn way he pleases. If God is benevolent, he would never cause unnecessary harm.

        How would one who acknowledges that evolution is not "nice" reconcile this?

        I never said that- personally for me God is a mathematical abstract that kicked off the big bang and put some ve
        • being benevolent does not neccessarily mean never causing unecessary harm

          The Christian God, some believe, is purely benevolent, all-loving. How could unnecessary harm be justified by such a being?

          the problems with evolution for self-centered and selfish individuals would be NECESSARY harm anyway to the greater good of survival of the fitest genome, so your agrument fails on that as well.

          No, that's exactly my point: why would an omniscient, omnipotent God use evolution, which necessarily harms certain
          • The Christian God, some believe, is purely benevolent, all-loving. How could unnecessary harm be justified by such a being?

            It can't be- but neither can any given harm to a finite being be unnecessary from the point of view of an infinite being. You don't know the whole plan- assuming that there is one, personaly I think it's a huge experiment and not even God knows how it will turn out in the end- therefore you don't know what harm is necessary and which is not.

            No, that's exactly my point: why would an
            • OK, so God has this great plan, which we lowly humans know nothing about. Got it.

              The point is this. Why must God harm something to achieve his goal?

              Is it because he wants to? No, he is all-loving. Is it because he has to? No, he is all-knowing and all-powerful. A tri-omni God must achieve its goal without causing harm.

              Designatio unius est exclusio alterius.
              • Why must God harm something to achieve his goal?

                Why must you burn wood to get lye? It's a part of the process- the process that he set up.

                Is it because he wants to? No, he is all-loving.

                Of course it is because he wants to, ever hear of touch love where you hurt a kid to get him to stop doing something bad, or for that matter electroshock therapy?

                Is it because he has to?

                This question is more interesting- he's set up the rules so that he has to, why would you expect him to go outside the rules?

                N

                • Re:Evolution works (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by hal9000 ( 80652 )
                  Humans are imperfect beings, and I totally agree with you on all points about effective parenting requiring saying "no," punishment, etc. We truly do become stronger with pain.

                  But to compare humans with God is to compare imperfection with perfection.

                  Why would God, as a Perfect being, set up such a system wherein harming people is the only way to teach them and make them grow? A Perfect being wouldn't have to do that, and could achieve the exact same thing without doing it.

                  We really are running in circles
                  • now, without tipping my hand either way (agnostic or deist) and without trying to troll or flamebait. I want to poing out a few things about your last line...

                    First, You say you reject god on the baisis of logic, however...
                    1) Our logic system is either;
                    a) incomplete -- and thus flawed
                    b) Self-referential thus self-contradicting and thus flawed (i think this is the upshot of Godel, yes?)

                    2) You proposition (for the sake of argument) that an all-knowing, all powerfull, all benevolent god might exists *
                  • What is the thing God is trying to achieve, in your estimation? How do you KNOW that a perfect being could achieve the exact same thing without doing it? How do you KNOW what the purpose is- when none of the rest of us do?

                    Just a thought experiment, drawn on one of my favorite science fiction stories from one of my favorite authors- let's say, for the sake of argument, that time itself is circular; that the begining of our universe, the "teacup of ultimate density" that was before the big bang, is also th
                    • How do you KNOW that a perfect being could achieve the exact same thing without doing it?

                      Because it is all-knowing and all-powerful. Such a being could do literally anything-- even that which to us is impossible or unimaginable.

                      How do you KNOW what the purpose is- when none of the rest of us do?

                      Never said I did.

                      [Chop part about cyclical universe and God possessing only knowledge gained from previous generations... sounds like interesting science fiction but I have no comment.]

                      Funny though- you reje
                    • Because it is all-knowing and all-powerful. Such a being could do literally anything-- even that which to us is impossible or unimaginable

                      All knowing/All powerfull within what scope, would be the question?

                      And if you don't know the purpose, how do you know what scope constitutes "harm" vs "not harm".

                      Look, personally I have no idea if there's some kind of creator. If there is, and if we ever discover it, it will no doubt be through scientific process, just like everything we currently know about the worl
                    • So you didn't answer my question. Where did this creator come from?
                    • From his creator of course- on back to an infinity of meta-universes deep- or for that matter, if you take the circular time argument instead- from your descendants. See why abortion is such an important issue to some people? :-)
      • The answer to your dilemna, of course, is in the word "unecessary." Since it's a safe bet you don't know God's purposes in creation, you do not have sufficient information to determine what is necessary and unecessary harm.

        A more legitimate challenge to God using evolution is the writings of the New Testament where Paul makes it pretty clear that death did not exist in the world prior to the Fall of Adam. If there is no death, then natural selection cannot work, and evolution as the origin of species fails
        • you do not have sufficient information to determine what is necessary and unecessary harm

          But if God is omniscient and omnipotent, all harm (or, Evil) is unnecessary, because the same effect could be acheived through unharmful means.
          • I'm definitely no expert but I suppose that's what happens when God decides to make creatures in his own image.

            You get some destructive interference, and you get some constructive interference. And that's even though you know exactly how it'll turn out.

            If you get nothing, then you probably didn't succeed in making something in your image.
            • But then God is not omnibenevolent. Typhoon Rananim has just killed over 100 people in China. If God knew this would happen, had the power to stop it, and chose not to, then he is not purely benevolent.
    • It always amazes me how many people believe in evolution, yet still believe major climate change must spell disaster.

      You are 100% on target. I see some people have already tried to defend their POV in other replies to this, and frankly I'm SO in favor of conservation and wise use of resources, but I cringe every time I see something about how global warming [1] is causing 10,000 species to go extinct every day. Yet somehow the planet and all its inhabitants carry on. Better calm down, because climate shift

      • [1] I don't doubt scientific evidence for global warming. I do doubt that human beings are powerful enough to cause it singlehandedly. And I do doubt that it's a catastrophic event unseen in the history of the planet. In fact, it seems pretty normal. We've just had a nice period of calm for the last thousand years.

        Where I don't doubt we could cause it singlehandedly- chances are by the time we noticed it we were already too late to do anything about it. And it most certainly is NOT unseen in the history
    • It always amazes me how many people believe in evolution, yet still believe major climate change must spell disaster.
      From a human point of view the important disaster factor is the economic cost of climate change, not how many species do or don't survive. Still, it is absolutely certain that at least some species will not survive major climate change (either warmer or cooler). That may be natural, but it could still be considered a disaster.

  • Chalk up one more (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jesrad ( 716567 ) on Thursday August 12, 2004 @12:46PM (#9950257) Journal
    Chalk up one more for these guys. [lomborg.com]

    • Why? (Score:2)

      by barakn ( 641218 )
      AFAIK, Bjorn made no predictions about coral bleaching and thus deserves no credit. Furthermore, the coral researchers indicated there may be unforeseen consequences of the change in algal symbionts that may be harmful to ocean ecology

      And there's little discussion of the effects of CO2 absorption by the oceans. This will increase the oceans' acidity. Recall that the coral skeleton is mostly calcium carbonate, which is labile to dissolution by acid.

      • The point is that it's good to keep a healthy dose of skepticism when in comes to environmental changes, before walking the streets wearing a 'DOOM' sign.

    • Re:Chalk up one more (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Tiassa ( 632878 )

      Chalk up one more for these guys.
      I did not read anything by that Lomborg fellow, but I RTFA, and the articles do not say "Rejoice, for Global Warming is a myth!", but rather "Rejoice guardedly, for we may have a bit more time than we feared to rein in Global Warming."

      So I wouldn't break out the Champagne yet.

      --
      Severin's first law: "For every ratio, there is an equal and opposite irratio."
  • One thing to remember about global warming and cooling (both of which have happened before) is that the global ranges of both plant and animal species change with the changing climate. Reef building corals will be found at higher latitudes as the Earth warms. Ocean current patterns will change too, of course, more critacally in the Atlantic than the Pacific. Reefs may disappear in a particular place, but corals will still survive.
  • Last night in fact: here [sciscoop.com].

    This is very encouraging news - but just because corals will survive doesn't necessarily mean we will...

    Oil is still at record high prices [slashdot.org] by the way...
  • ...since at times in the recent (geologically speaking) past the climate has been significantly warmer than today and the coral survived then. Something the global-warming-doomsday brigade have seen fit to ignore.

    It's also worth noting that damage due to pollutants tends to get *under*reported as everyone's so keen to blame global warming. We need to do more to actually reduce the amount of shit we tip into the oceans, rather than bleating about how everyone *else* should stop using their cars.

  • adapt? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Transcendent ( 204992 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @03:39PM (#9962947)
    Corals Adapt to Global Warming ...what global warming?

Slashdot Top Deals

Every cloud has a silver lining; you should have sold it, and bought titanium.

Close