Slashdot Mirror
Images Show Further Damage To Great Barrier Reef, But Scientists Assure It's Not Dead (huffingtonpost.com)
New images of the Great Barrier Reef, the largest living thing on Earth, are alarming and show the extent of the damage climate change has caused to the coral. But it's not dead yet, scientists have assured, reports the HuffingtonPost citing several scientists. In April, researchers found that more than a third of corals in central and northern parts of the reef had been killed and 93 percent of individuals reefs had been affected by a condition known as coral bleaching (which happens when the water is too warm). New research shows the damage has worsened. A story, however, doing rounds on social media claims that the Great Barrier Reef has died. The viral story has been picked up by many well-read outlets, creating confusion among people. From a HuffingtonPost article: But as a whole, it is not dead. Preliminary findings published Thursday of Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority surveys show 22 percent of its coral died from the bleaching event. That leaves more than three quarters still alive -- and in desperate need of relief. Two leading coral scientists that The Huffington Post contacted took serious issue with Outside's piece (the misleading viral story), calling it wildly irresponsible. Russell Brainard, chief of the Coral Reef Ecosystem Program at NOAA's Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, told HuffPost he expects the article was meant to highlight the urgency of the situation. But those who don't know any better "are going to take it at face value that the Great Barrier Reef is dead," he said. The Spokesman-Review, in Spokane, Washington, fueled the myth Thursday, when it published a blog with the headline: "Great Barrier Reef pronounced dead by scientists." Brainard told HuffPost the recent bleaching event was a "severe blow" that resulted in serious mortality. Still, "we're very far from an obituary," he said.
...that as a geological feature, the GBR is relatively new.
As it only developed over the last 8000 years or so (since the last ice age) it's entirely possible that - in geological spans - the GBR is an ephemeral thing, like foam on the crest of a wave to us. To our short timeframe it seems permanent but it really isn't.
I know, that's not part of the FUD-creed, so downvote me to oblivion.
-Styopa
Monitoring since 1980 is not really a long time as hard corals grow slowly for decades or longer. Really both soft and hard corals have no life-span since they are both individual and colonial animals. One of the same corals alive today could be a growth from a branch broken off a hundred years ago.
It could be a natural cyclical bleaching and die off to make more room for younger healthier colonies.
We certainly should try to limit pollution, carbon buildup and oceanic acidification, but lets not pretend like monitoring from the 1980s gives us complete insight in to how a biome works that has been around for thousands of years.
It's a very irrational thing to say about a chain a reefs, that are each made up of many different species of coral.
If we accept roughly 2,300 square kilometers of mixed biology as "a living thing", then we must also accept roughly 5,500,000 square kilometers of mixed biology as "a living thing" which means that the Amazon Rainforest has this reef collection beat by three decimal places and a bit more.
But on your point, yes, that mega-shroom wins on more coherent definitions of "a living thing", and I remember a species of tree has similar behavior with many trunks growing from a singular root structure. (though I blank on the name)