Surveying climate change impacts on Central America’s coral reefs
19 Mar 2007
Placencia, Belize – A WWF survey shows that rising temperatures, altered rainfall and coral bleaching are among the main threats to Central America’s Mesoamerican Reef.

The survey, conducted in this small coastal Caribbean village, recorded first-hand testimony from local inhabitants about the impact climate change has had on their marine resources, and by association, on their way of life.

“This is the first time an assessment of this nature has been carried out in the reef region,” explained Nadia Bood, a WWF scientist studying the Mesoamerican Reef.

“Placencia was chosen due to its close geographic location to the reef and the fact that the village’s main source of income is strongly tied to the coastal area, particularly from fishing and tourism.”

Many of the villagers surveyed believed that coral bleaching and overfishing have significantly reduced fish and lobster populations. They believe that responsible fisheries management and stricter control of off-season fishing regulations and illegal fishing are needed to reduce the destruction of the reef system.

The climate change “witnesses” also asserted that the climate is not as predictable as it used to be, with storm systems and rainfall becoming increasingly severe and unpredictable over time. During storms and hurricanes, erosion has been a problem for the peninsula and has been even more of a concern for surrounding islands, where rising sea levels are also having an impact.

Certain locations in Central America and southern Mexico are already prone to extreme weather events such as intense storms and hurricanes, as well as flooding and landslides.

“The results of the survey bring to light that climate change is a serious problem that affects livelihoods directly,” added Bood. “This study shows how crucial it is to take immediate actions toward reducing the effects of climate change effects.”

The survey complements other scientific work WWF is carrying out, including a report with The Nature Conservancy to assess the physical status of coral reefs throughout the Mesoamerican Reef. Based on preliminary findings for Belize, deeper offshore reefs appear to be more susceptible to bleaching effects. Many of these reefs are those which fishers and marine tour operators depend upon for their livelihood.

END NOTES:
• The Mesoamerican Reef, the world’s second largest barrier reef, stretches more than 700 kilometers from the extreme north of the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico down through the Belize Barrier Reef, the Caribbean coast of Guatemala and the island complex of the Bahía/Cochinos Cays adjacent to the northern coast of Honduras.

• The WWF survey, conducted with assistance from the US-based Edelman Public Relations firm, interviewed 22 villagers from Placencia, Belize, which lies just 30km off the coast from the Mesoamerican Reef.

Fisheries Management - right on.

"The results of the survey bring to light that climate change is a serious problem" UHHH...sooo....WHAT? Whats the point? Climate change "witnesses"? Who are they?
Nonsense article except for the overfishing and management parts.

Agreed Rykat. I think that global warming is very real and very dangerous, but it's quite humorous to call interviews with 22 people an "assessment."

i am neither as well read or informed as either of you, but my impression was that the opinions of 22 villagers was the "survey". the "assessment" appears to include and/or relate to studies and reports done by WWF and TNC, plus the survey.

i dont necessarily see the humor in it. if something was (possibly) occurring in the town you lived and made your livelihood in all your life, and you were surveyed about it, i would think you would like your opinions taken seriously. just a thought.

SJ, I don't profess to be well read on any topic (matter of fact I thought WWF was World Wrestling Federation) but the article above either in inconclusive due to missing information or makes no sense.
How would the villagers possibly know that climate change is responsible for negatively affecting their way of life ie marine resources?
"Climate is not as predictable as it used to be"? HUH?
Rising sea levels?
I would certainly take their opinions seriously but before I can believe in SOMETHING so important a few FACTS would be useful.
This article throws out a lot of suppositions based on...nothing.
Had they stayed with the initial premise of over fishing,illegal fishing and a lack of a cohesive fisheries management program, this article would have made sense. As written....Oscar Mayer! JMHO

ry, pal, i am not disagreeing with you, well, not totally. i do agree the issue might be a poorly written article which is confusing to dicipher (sp?). yes, more facts would have been helpful. some facts including results of increasing population, industry, pollution and/or tourism would have been nice too.

it does not say the villagers referred to 'climate change'. it only said they thought coral bleaching and over-fishing...blah blah.

i wonder if this assessment is still ongoing, with some actual facts to come? if not, it is inconclusve.

yet, here in PA, i believe the climate IS changing, or at least shifting. used to be 'white christmases' happened a lot. certainly at least COLD ones. the last 2-3 years it was over 50* in dec & jan, it didn't get cold until feb. i do not ever remember that happening before. perhaps a fluke, a natural cycle, perhaps not. just an example.

I really think most of what we remember from way back as well as the past couple of years, is anecdotal. Can remmeber huge snow storms when I was a kid, can remember Christmas in short sleeves. This past winter was mellow in Dec and January but do you recall how cold it was in October. Was nasty. Froze our ass** off in November on Andros for 4 days. Residents said they couldnt remember it ever being that cold so early in the winter. Think it is all relative - general trend slightly warmer...probably.
What burns my butt are the news casts and articles that blame any and all "odd" weather on global warming. Totally ridiculous.
When those tornadoes ripped through Florida a few weeks ago every dumb a** newscast had their resident tree hugger prognosticating how storms are intensifying, tornadoes will be more deadly, on and on and on. What crap.
Gee, in 05 at the end of the hurricane season for the next 4 months all we heard about was how horrific the 06 hurricane season was going to be. Came and went with a wimper, thankfully, but it is typical.
Have notices one thing though. Many of the meteorologists are not in bed with the environmentalists when it comes to storms/cause/effect. Most of them know better that the weather patterns are controlled more by the ocean currents movements than by global warming.
I am surely not an expert on global warming, but I do know that for every so-called "expert" that agrees with the man-caused premise there is an expert that disagrees with it.
I heard a lot of out and out LIES coming from the mouth of algore at the hearings he testified before several days ago. And when one disagrees it's like.....instant castration by(yeah, mostly the Left)the media and so called scientists. JMHO

Rykat - there's a substantial difference between saying global warming is happening and that it is manmade. And whether what we believe we are seeing is "unusual" or is part of a repeating cycle. All these views exist. Am I correct in thinking that your position is that either you don't think there is any ongoing climate change, or that even if there is it's just part of a continuing cycle?

just a note: i wasn't talking that "i remember when i was a kid..." stuff when i said "used to be", i was talking 5-7 years ago. as far as october went, it wasnt cold here - my kids went trick or treating without coats.

i dont listen to meteorologists anyway - they cant get right what's happening tomorrow, let alone next hurricane season. it may be true that weather patterns are decided by ocean currents, but it isnt established whether the currents are changing due to industrialization either. i understand with damming, industry and so forth, the geography of river deltas, bays, etc are changing.
for every action, there is a reaction, a basic law of physics. even if the action is innocent or what man deems progress. for example, it is a fact that with ever increasing boat traffic in our oceans increasing the sound vibrations, the whales can no longer communicate by sonar across them as they have for a millenia. who cares? i do.

BTW, what is a "so-called scientist"? one either is or isnt one.

i suppose what bothers me about ry's posts is that there is never any middle ground, it has to be one extreme or the other. if something cant be proven 100%, it doesn't exsist. i think that if speculation and theory was discouraged, like in the dark ages, we'd still believe the universe revolves around the earth, and man would never have gotten off the ground. MHO, and i always have one.

Interesting topic, "what is a scientist?". Strictly there isn't a definition, so RK can use the word as he wants. Taking it to mean someone who is actively working in research I suppose SJ is right, but as someone who's worked at the edges of formal scientific research most of my life (and in the middle of it for some time) I feel uncomfortable with restricting the word to that meaning. The truth is that anyone can apply the scientific method to the existing body of knowledge and come up with valid views, and in that sense I'm with RK - look at the substance, not the credentials of the person spouting their opinions.

An interesting and not unrelated question - can anyone come up with a one sentence definition of a river? Be careful - it's not as easy as it seems.

1. ok, i stand corrected. i just like to play devil's advocate.

2. not me. dictionary.com says "a natural stream of water of fairly large size flowing in a definite course or channel or series of diverging and converging channels." and "A large natural stream of water emptying into an ocean, lake, or other body of water and usually fed along its course by converging tributaries." then again, it also says "a person who rives." alright, P2, what's the catch?

In reply to -"I am surely not an expert on global warming, but I do know that for every so-called "expert" that agrees with the man-caused premise there is an expert that disagrees with it."

That is entirely untrue. It is well established in the scientific community that the dramatic increase in global warming and the associated effects of rising temperature, rising carbon dioxide levels and eutrophication (nutrient loading due to pollution) are caused by humans. If you look at the data it is apparent that the dramatic change is well outside the normal flux of the global environment over time. It is extremely naive to think that 6.6 BILLION PEOPLE pumping carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere and dumping pollutants into the water and soil systems isn't going to impact our environment.

I would estimate that there is >95% agreement in the scientific community on this issue, however the problem with the general public thinking that the opposite view is holding equal weight (that there is a 1:1 ratio of experts on either side as quoted above) comes from the general media's exploitation of this topic. From a journalistic perspective, two sides of an issue must be weighted equally regardless of the scientific evidence. Therefore, the general population outside the scientific community has been exposed to this as a 50/50 scenario when it is more like a 97/3 scenario.

FORTUNATELY, recently there has been more support from the political arena to clear up this problem- the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) issued the first in a series of reports recognizing that "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (direct effects of human activity) greenhouse gas concentrations."

Folks, the political term 'very likely' is as close to positive causation that you will ever get out of a political assessment. Not only did the report concede this fact but also discusses the realistic impact of global warming on all things human - outlook not so good. Visit http://www.ipcc.ch/ or review scientific journals and educate yourself.

The scientific community breathed a sigh of relief when this report came out because it is believed that the support of this report from a political standpoint will 'validate' the majority view point so that the media is no longer pressured to portray a 50/50 viewpoint of this issue (In the mainstream media a 'balanced, unbiased' story must involve equal coverage of both sides. As example, 99 people might agree that the grass is green while 1 guy says it's pink. In a news story 1 person that says it's green and 1 person that says it's pink will be interviewed, and the two viewpoints will be presented to the public equally- 50/50. I ask you, what color is the grass?)

It is extremely unfortunate that the general public is not aware of the seriousness of this problem- which means there will be resistance to corrective actions while we are wasting time convincing the public and politicians of something we already know to be true.

I will say that there are a lot of 'doomsday' outlooks about climate change. There are models that predict catastrophic consequences, but when you begin to add corrective measures to those models that reduce the impact of human activity (CO2 sequestration and emmisions regulations for instance) you see huge drops in those 'doomsday' estimations. It is clear that we are having a huge impact and need to take steps to correct the problem before it gets completely out of hand. Personally, I live on the east coast (US) and my house is in an area that will be the first to be under water within 100 years following the current projection of sea level rise without active efforts to counter these effects.

I am a biochemist and my research deals with global climate change impacts on marine environments. I think that qualifies me as a scientist ;-)

Thanks for a voice of reason...a rarity on this message board!

hrrumph, thanks jesse. >:( i thought both P2 and myself often fit that criteria as well.

bb - when you go under, fellow eastcoasters ry and i will be under there with ya. i agree with pretty much all you say, but as a lay-person (read: average housefrau), i am unable to make such statements. glad you did.

nice monologue, factual, informative and well written. you go, girlfriend!

Well lets see. If one should dare disagree with Jesse one can expect the usual tirade of name calling, so why bother.
Some good points BB07, although I don't agree with all, scientist or not.
Pushing the envelope with 95% agreement in the scientific community, guess I have been reading only articles by 5%.
Would prefer you skipped the generalizations and gotten more specific about the marine environment, particularly on the East Coast of the US. Please do if you have time.
Totally disagree with the "grass is pink" scenario. All major news organization chime in unison that man-made global warming is a fact and you will rarily see any other viewpoint. One must dig deeply through scientific publications to find differing points of view. The general public at this point is receiving ONE point of view only - the doomsday scenario. No 50/50, coser to 99/1.
I would also prefer to skip relying on the political arena to clarify any problem, especially this one.
I believe climate change is happening.
I believe man is probably responsible for some part of it.
I do not disagree that we can make "reasonable" adjustments over time to correct the impact of human activity.
I believe the doomsday scenario is pure bullsh**,as is its main proponent AL Gore. Just imagine if he were President now. The Iraq War is a pimple on an elephant's a** compared to the war that would be going on in this country over his nonsense.
I would be seriously interested in any marine impact information, BB07, with which you are familiar(publications, etc)
I have lived and worked on the Atlantic Ocean (off New Jersey coast and Manasquan River) for over 40 years in the fishing industry and can see very little "climatic" impact. Pollution and management and other but climate changes are not noticeable. Tide levels in particular have not measurably changed in this area at least not in my lifetime.
JMHO (go ahead, Jesse, you can slobber now, as usual)

(At the Congressional hearings last week, ALGORE said "the planet has a fever". My first thought was 'and you are the rectal thermometer checking it'). Sorry for that.

Forgive me for sounding choleric, BB07 but as a scientist doing research on global climate change, I find your question on "Ambergris Caye" - Help finding a Weather Report" a bit puerile. Sorry, just curious, seems ....odd?

RK- Do you dust your dictionary off when you feel the need to insult someone? Classy.

So it appears that Ambergris does not have a weather station- therefore no reliable means of accesible weather forecast. Being that I'm aware that Belize City and AC differ in weather- I just want to know if it is going to rain this weekend in AC. I'm pretty sure that doesn't have anything to do with climate change research.

So the question becomes- RK, why don't you tell me where I can find an extended 10 day weather forecast specifically for the island? Not so puerile after all, is it? It seems that the locals rely on a daily weather report from the San Pedro daily, which is great and a testament to the laid-back island nature that we all obviously crave since we spend beaucoup bucks to vacation in exotic places. However, the American in me screams- Planner!

So do me a favor and find a source of a weather forecast for me- you seem to be adept at digging up

As for everything else- I am just going to point out the following:
First you say, "Pushing the envelope with 95% agreement in the scientific community, guess I have been reading only articles by 5%. (read with sarcasm)" Then you say, "One must dig deeply through scientific publications to find differing points of view."

Think you have to dig very deeply for that 5%, huh?

So, you have already done the work for us by completely contradicting yourself. So, you debunked your own opinion already- I find this just a little obtuse.
I don't know- just seems odd?
So, get crackin on that weather report.

bb - welcme to the fun...egging ry on is just amusement for most of the rest of us. there is no winning an argument with him. (ry, your charm is that we always know what to expect, no surprises).

and ps - when the rest of us want to know what is happening weather-wise, we ask tacogirl to open her door and look outside

Google - Earth. But then a third grader would know that. And may also have as meritorious opinion on global warming as the scientists.

Roget's, dun got it fer Xmas, needs all da help weez can git!

Just trying to be consistent, SJ, no suprises!

Ten day forecast? Uh!...Farmers Almanac about as accurate as you will get.
The "questions" and "problems" in the scientific community are becoming much clearer. Sorry, no more insulting than that!

Oh....by the way SJ, believe it or not there are opinions in the world that 'differ' from yours. Not that they matter but they are different.
Also detect a bit of "weather" shall we say in that 3 rd paragraph BB07? Now, Now thats cheatin'. Bad boy Jesse.

So anyway, I am going to politely excuse myself from this topic because I really don't see the point of any further comment.

Although I will say, in response to RK's previous post:
"And when one disagrees it's like.....instant castration"

That I am a robust supporter of the castration of the ignorant- so keep an eye on your goods RK, because someone will get you one day.

BeachBride - you are a scream!!! Countless boarders would pay good money to see Rykat get a little "nip and tuck"! Literally, figuratively, we're not picky!

TEE HEE, Nuts! Your timing is impeccable!! :-) :-) :-) Literally! LMAO!

NEXT!(c'mon Jesse too obvious, please explain the aka someday)

Geez, where's Law when you need a good smackdown! Ta-Ta!