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.

23 of 99 comments (clear)

  1. ex-parrotfish by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 3, Funny

    Images Show Further Damage To Great Barrier Reef, But Scientists Assure It's Not Dead

    It's not dead, it's just CRESTing!

  2. Re:Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading! by sims+2 · · Score: 3, Funny

    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!
  3. Re:Not dead by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.
  4. Let's not forget... by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...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
    1. Re:Let's not forget... by Layzej · · Score: 3, Insightful

      it's entirely possible that - in geological spans - the GBR is an ephemeral thing,

      I suppose we may find that many things are ephemeral during periods of rapid climate change.

    2. Re:Let's not forget... by myowntrueself · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ...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.

      You are totally correct. The GBR wasn't there in the Pleistocene, when CO2 levels were higher than today.

      In fact when the GBR was getting started the Sahara desert wasn't a desert at all, it was lush grass and swamp land.

      Humans take such a short term view of things.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    3. Re:Let's not forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Humans take such a short term view of things.

      Probably because we don't live very long and can only survive under some very specific environmental conditions.

      If human survival is insignificant, then the state of the GBR isn't worth worrying about.

    4. Re: Let's not forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except that this time, climate change isn't happening on geological timescales, it's happening within the scale of our lifetime - and there are billions of people who are too poor to cope.

      All it takes is a decade of drought, a little too much sea rise, or an unusually big storm surge salting croplands in a river delta, and hundreds of thousands can no longer live there. The refugees have to go elsewhere, eat something, which results in stress and conflict in neighboring areas.

      The Pentagon and other militaries have already predicted this, and you only have to look at Syria to see the results.

    5. Re:Let's not forget... by HeckRuler · · Score: 3, Informative

      ...But the great barrier reef isn't a geological feature. Reefs aren't formed by geological processes.

      You could likewise say that as a astronomical feature, the GBR is relatively new only being 20,000 years old while it's closest star is formed 4.6 billion years ago.

      It's ecological. The coral is living stuff. The fish and plants which make up the ecosystem are all alive. They are not rocks waiting for the tectonic plates to move them around. It's like a forest or a rain jungle. They certainly operate on larger timescales than people are used to thinking about, but they are not geological or astronomical.

      Reefs are most certainly tied to geological features. They need shallow water at the right temperature. And change that and they'll die off. Just as much as if you somehow stop all the rain, the forests in California will all burn down.

      On an evolutionary timescale, the GBR has been around a long time and it's fostered some amazing specialists which have unique and possibly useful genetic traits. As we're right on the cusp of understanding the genetic code and reaping that useful insight and millennia of real-world testing and application, it'd be a shame to lose it.

      Of course it's not permanent and eternal. Nothing is. The sun will burn out and blow up eventually.

    6. Re:Let's not forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are assume that these climate changes happen overnight such that someone could be caught out in the cold or caught in the desert and actually die.

      False.

      That is not how it would work.

      Of course not. The problem is that nobody knows how it would work. It is you who assumes too much. E.g. that if the current agricultural areas of the world becomes a huge desert, the proper terrain, soil conditions etc. will inevitably appear wherever the climate happens to shift into the correct range.

      Your theory requires a constant level of habitable terrain that humans merely need to move fast enough to exploit. It totally ignores the more likely scenario -- The Sahara will remain an uninhabitable dessert, and North America, South America, Australasia and Eurasia will join it.

  5. Historical context by Layzej · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Historical context by Layzej · · Score: 5, Informative

      It does appear as though the hotter the world gets the worse things get for the coral. The bleaching events coincide with the hottest years on record.

    2. Re:Historical context by hey! · · Score: 2

      You know, irony usually ends badly around here.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  6. Not the largest organism by avatar4d · · Score: 3, Informative
    --
    Confucius say: "Man who associates with smarter men than himself is smarter than the men he associates with."
    1. Re:Not the largest organism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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)

    2. Re:Not the largest organism by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      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.

      I'll see your rainforest and raise you the boreal forest

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  7. Natural selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. Okay then what do they suggest. by coolmoe2 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  9. Queue Monty Python by pseudorand · · Score: 3, Funny

    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?

  10. Re:gawd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I don't watch the news either. I just wear these:
    The Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses have been designed to help people develop a relaxed attitude to danger. They follow the principle "what you don't know can't hurt you" and turn completely dark and opaque at the first sign of danger. This prevents you from seeing anything that might alarm you.

  11. Re:Coral Bleaching by HeckRuler · · Score: 2

    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.

  12. Coral reefs by Charcharodon · · Score: 3, Informative
    Couple items for those of you who don't spend much time underwater.

    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.

  13. Re:Coral Bleaching by Charcharodon · · Score: 2

    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.