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.
Seems it was politically useful to describe them as "dead", facts notwithstanding.
Not unusual, if highly annoying.
Just amp up the negativity of the description, and if necessary change the definitions of basic words. Worked for "they let you do it".
your gettign news form the liberal canadian propoganda site...they are AWFUL.....another nail in coffn for why i just get news from real people in hte area rather then here or the nets lil govt buddies
Its probably pining for the fjords!
Images Show Further Damage To Great Barrier Reef, But Scientists Assure It's Not Dead
It's not dead, it's just CRESTing!
Shhhh! I don't want them to get any ideas about making the main site as broken as the mobile one.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
Look, matey, I know a dead reef when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
You are welcome on my lawn.
...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
The Great Barrier Reef has been monitored by AIMS since 1980. The first mass bleaching event occurred in (then) record warm year 1998 when 50 per cent of the reefs suffered bleaching. The next in 2002 where 60 per cent of reefs were affected. In both events, about five per cent of the Great Barrier Reef's coral reefs were severely damaged. (compared to 22% now)
The impact from this most recent bleaching event, the most widespread and severe ever recorded on the Great Barrier Reef, is still unfolding.
The Humongous Fungus is the largest organism on Earth
Confucius say: "Man who associates with smarter men than himself is smarter than the men he associates with."
They should just move further south to cooler waters. Unless they're lowlife corals who wont' get a job and are just leaching off the system, in which case they can rot in their dependency hell until the die and make room for more productive members of society to take over and turn the place into luxury flats.
Envirowackos are disappointed that Mathew wasn't worse
Taking the HG wells time machine back a few decades when we could have probably saved it? Even if all greenhouse gasses were stopped completely right this second its going to take a very long time for the earth to trap that carbon again and start returning to normal temperatures. So call it now or call it later but I really can't see what can be done about it at this point.
Maybe if we act on carbon caps we can save some of what is still alive in the ocean.
Great Barrier Reef: I'm not quite dead yet!
Global Warming: 'Ere, he says he's not dead.
Science: Yes he is
Great Barrier Reef: I'm not
Science: Well, he will be soon, he's very ill
Great Barrier Reef: I'm getting better
Science: No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment.
How is it that no one beat me to this post here on slashdot?
"93 percent of individuals reefs had been affected by a condition known as coral bleaching (which happens when the water is too warm)" ...or when the water is too cold, or when the sun shines too much, or when the corals die off from diseases brought in by ecologists who swim around the area while getting paychecks for goofing around on a boat in the tropics...
As someone who has kept coral in aquariums for several decades, I'm not sure why this post was marked troll. Other than the the part about ecologists causing a bleaching event, it's pretty accurate, though I'm assuming that part was added for humorous effect.
I tended to keep fairly high end systems which had brighter than average lighting. So I've witnessed coral bleaching due to it being kept in dimly lit systems at pet stores and holding facilities and then placed under much brighter lighting.
I've also had heaters that the thermostat became faulty and brought the temperature up to 95F. In my case, conditions were optimal in the tank when this happened and no bleaching occurred. But I've also seen bleaching occur in a couple species in a tank when the temperature hit 90F due to a chiller malfunctioning in the summer.
An individual coral colony can also bleach because a fish or other critter stresses it by picking at it. Nutrient runoff from farming can also cause bleaching, pH changes, etc. Coral is a very sensitive animal and does not do will with sudden changes or changes outside of its very small comfort zone for a lot of parameters. This includes light (brightness and wavelength), nutrient (or even inorganic particulate) content in the water, temperature, pH, water current (velocity and even oscillating vs. constant current. It can also suffocate from lack of current), oxygen content. Some marine invertebrates will only digest food that is of a specific type and size.
Because this reef is not bleaching due to cold water, excess sunlight, or disease. It's bleaching due to warm water and the article points that out.
It's like a news story about a man getting stabbed (which can be fatal), and someone pointing out that parenthesized information and stressing that diabetes can also kill people. That's true, but it makes them a troll.
Because this reef is not bleaching due to cold water, excess sunlight, or disease. It's bleaching due to warm water and the article points that out.
I can't say I've read it, but did it mention fertilizer runoff in TFA? That was a major issue for the GBR for some time. What about current changes? Granted, that may be impacted by temperature changes, but it may not even be the temperature that is the root cause. It may be a combination of environmental changes, but the temperature is the simplest one for us to notice.
1. The mineral structure, the big rocky stuff that sinks pirate ships that run afoul the reef, IS...NOT...ALIVE... Never has been, never will be. It is merely the mineral deposits that corals deposit on things to use as a base on which to grow. So when they go on an on about it being thousands of years old and being the largest organism on the planet, they are either woefully ignorant or blatantly lying. It's like saying the human race is the biggest organism on the planet because we build cities and have people everywhere. Scratch off the top inch of a reef and you have hit the dead stuff.
2. Corals do not take thousands of years to grow. They take days, weeks, and sometimes months to grow. Many spawn free swimming and drifting larva every lunar cycle or so (full moon).
3. That's right boys and like the 2 girls here, corals are not plants, they are animals that cultivate algae inside themselves to use as a food source. That is the dreaded "bleaching" they are always worried about. Bleaching does not always equal death to a coral, nor is it always cause by a change in temperature. Disease, stress, salinity, water chemistry, water clarity, sand settling, and people (touching, nets, poisons, boats etc.) all cause that. Sometimes the corals dump the algae in order to get a more productive local algae to grow. Corals also catch and eat various things, hence why the bleaching is not a death sentence.
4. Coral reefs are not static. They move over time. When they spawn they dump millions of larvae into the currents which spread everywhere. If they find a spot that is favorable they will start a new reef. Storms break up the reefs and the chunks can go on to form new reefs or end up in dead spots on the old reef and patch the holes. So when they go on about parts of a reef dying, yep it probably is. Is that normal? Depends on why. A reef being smothered by runoff silt, probably not. Water temps changing, yep happens all the time. Currents and regional temps have never been static, they move and change with time. The reef will die off during the change. Temperature tolerant organism will take over, and when the temperature shifts back they too will move on or die and the corals will take over again....growing right back on top of the "dead" reef" like nothing ever happened..
5. Coral reefs can be replaced at an time in locations they find favorable by the average person. They'd like you to think that only dedicated government certified highly trained scientists are the ones capable of dealing with the problem. Not even remotely true. There is an entire cottage industry in the aquarium trade of people who grow corals in their homes. Those same techniques are used often to repopulate areas that have been damaged much in the same way you would replant trees after a hurricane. I personally have been kicking the idea around for years of building my own patch reef offshore for fun and profit down here in Florida away from the well known dive spots loved to death by tourists.
I love the ocean and spend is much time in it as I can, but I grow weary of the shrill land lubbers claiming to know what is best, if only we would just put them in charge. Fuck that. If the government was in charge of the ocean there would be a shortage of sand within 10 years.
Cirby speaks the truth. Even that last bit. Go to any popular dive site and it will be half dead and picked clean of shells and other souvenirs. I have a favorite beach dive I do in......(not going to tell you). On the right side of the pier is where all the tourists go and it has nothing left but fish. Go on the left side of the pier where there is no beach access parking (damn those rich people and their condos) and it's a pain in the ass to haul your gear to and you can dive a Florida reef that they've claim doesn't exist anymore. It looks like a 1960's reef photo. Very pretty.
...except the article is pretty much full of crap.
Sure, the scientists they interview claim it was warm water that caused the bleaching - but that warm water was a massive HALF A DEGREE above normal.
The daily variance in temperature in pretty much every coastal water in the world is several times that.
It's like a news story about a huge, complicated ecosystem that tries to pin the cause on one thing, when it was probably several things happening at about the same time. Or, to put it in your terms, "there were forty people shot in Chicago last night - that guy must have been really busy!"
You have made some assumptions there. You assume that half a degree is not enough to cause problems with the corel. Sure, scientists have their laboratory tests and charts to back up their claims, but you trumped them with your CAPS LOCK key. Never mind that corel is particularly sensitive to temperature variation and so for them half a degree is actually massive.
You also assume that the daily variance in temperature stops as soon as it gets warm. Could it not possibly be that the variance continues, but the peaks get hotter while it never gets as cold as it used to? The problem isn't that it gets hot for a short time, but if it stays hot for weeks at a time.
You say that this is all crap, but you have no idea of what you are talking about. You accuse the scientists of simplifying the problem and yet think that the idea that you came up with in 10 minutes that it can get hotter for parts of the day is enough to demolish the view of people who spend every day studying this sort of thing.