Slashdot Mirror


'Unprecedented' Bleaching Damages Two-Thirds Of Australia's Great Barrier Reef (bbc.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Unprecedented coral bleaching in consecutive years has damaged two-thirds of Australia's Great Barrier Reef, aerial surveys have shown. The bleaching — or loss of algae — affects a 1,500km (900 miles) area of the reef, according to scientists. The latest damage is concentrated in the middle section, whereas last year's bleaching hit mainly the north. Experts fear the proximity of the two events will give damaged coral little chance to recover.

130 comments

  1. I'll bet by phantomfive · · Score: 0, Troll

    I'll bet they'll recover

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:I'll bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's not so much the cute fishes that the problem here, it's the underlying mechanism of ocean acidification:
      http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/16/world/ocean-oxygen-nature/index.html

      aka, the Permian Triassic exctinction, the "great dying", where lots of stuff in the sea died, and algae and fungi bloomed, poisoning the atmosphere killing 90% of all spiecies and snowballing the CO2 level to 2000ppi and 8 degree celsius increase.
      http://www.newsweek.com/carbon-emissions-could-spark-mass-extinction-321061

      It's whether the Trump's and Pajits of this world do enough damage to take pass that runaway point.

    2. Re:I'll bet by Maritz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The only surprise is that you concede any damage is real in the first place.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    3. Re:I'll bet by jandersen · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'll bet they'll recover

      Oh yes, of course - corals have been around since the Cambrian or thereabouts, but the question is when. And how much of The Great Barrier Reef will be lost? The reef is apparently not incredibly old, but it will take a long time to recover in human terms. Even if we stopped all polluting activity now, there will still be a long period of increasing warming. More heat in the atmosphere means more extreme storms, which mean stronger erosion on coasts and reefs, among other things, and when the coral polyps are not there to rebuild the reef, it will get eroded away. And so on.

      Climate deniers always imagine that climate change is only about an small increase in temperature, so what's the fuss? The fuss is because everything is connected in a complex network, of course; if it was only about slightly more pleasant temperatures, nobody would complain, but it isn't. Take the corals - if the reef dies, not only will they get eroded away (leaving the coast exposed to the sea), but the fish that live there disappear; and since a lot of commercial fisheries depend on those fish stocks, a lot of fishers go out of business. Less fish may also mean less predation on jellyfish larvae, which is probably why we see a marked increase in jellyfish washing up on beaches; this also causes real problems for fishing in some areas. Nature is very complex and we are still only beginning to understand the complexities; but we know enough to see how easily we can unbalance the whole thing, and being reckless out of mere spite is simply incredibly stupid - criminally stupid, I'd say.

    4. Re:I'll bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if it was only about slightly more pleasant temperatures, nobody would complain, but it isn't.

      In terms of humanity's total cumulative impact on nature, pollution killing off a coral reef and some jellyfish doesn't really scrape the surface. People mourn about barrier reefs but don't give a shit about the total obliteration of huge areas of nature necessary for roads or housing or agriculture. AFAIC humans have as much right to fuck up the planet for our own benefit as mosquitoes or any other useless species that's ever infested and overrun the planet. If it screws us in the long run, then that's nature's way of telling us that a global population of 6 billion isn't really sustainable.

      Genesis 1:28, bitches.

    5. Re:I'll bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm getting tired of worrying about shit. Let's fucking destroy it once and for all and stop thinking about what may or may not happen.

      No of course i don't think like this, but it's getting harder and harder to fight these thoughts...

    6. Re:I'll bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's whether the Trump's and Pajits of this world do enough damage to take pass that runaway point.

      Designated Shitting Oceans

    7. Re:I'll bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Climate deniers [...] complex [...]

      See? There's the problem. Climate deniers and complex don't mix.

    8. Re:I'll bet by budgenator · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Oh Bullshit, these rent-seekers did an aerial survey, the coral bleaching is due to a rapid drop in sea level.

      Abstract. The 2015–2016 El-Niño and related ocean warming has generated significant coral bleaching and mortality worldwide. In Indonesia, the first signs of bleaching were reported in April 2016. However, this El Niño has impacted Indonesian coral reefs since 2015 through a different process than temperature-induced bleaching. In September 2015, altimetry data show that sea level was at its lowest in the past 12 years, affecting corals living in the bathymetric range exposed to unusual emersion. In March 2016, Bunaken Island (North Sulawesi) displayed up to 85% mortality on reef flats dominated by Porites, Heliopora and Goniastrea corals with differential mortality rates by coral genus. Almost all reef flats showed evidence of mortality, representing 30% of Bunaken reefs. For reef flat communities which were living at a depth close to the pre-El Niño mean low sea level, the fall induced substantial mortality likely by higher daily aerial exposure, at least during low tide periods. Altimetry data were used to map sea level fall throughout Indonesia, suggesting that similar mortality could be widespread for shallow reef flat communities, which accounts for a vast percent of the total extent of coral reefs in Indonesia. The altimetry historical records also suggest that such an event was not unique in the past two decades, therefore rapid sea level fall could be more important in the dynamics and resilience of Indonesian reef flat communities than previously thought. The clear link between mortality and sea level fall also calls for a refinement of the hierarchy of El Niño impacts and their consequences on coral reefs. Coral mortality induced by the 2015–2016 El-Niño in Indonesia: the effect of rapid sea level fall

      You have to get into the water where the corals are bleached and take observations to tell what is happening, for the most part, bleaching occured in upper 15 cm of the reefs before temperatures had reached NOAA’ Coral Reef Watch’s bleaching thresholds.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    9. Re: I'll bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've linked to a report about a completely different reef.

    10. Re:I'll bet by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh I didn't realise that the Great Barrier Reef was in Indonesia. Thanks for correcting that.

      Now a metaphorical causality question. If another man's face hurts due to a sinus infection and I show you this through a peer review study, does that mean we get a free pass at punching you in the face?

      I'm not saying you're wrong, just that an entire body of scientists think that you are.

    11. Re:I'll bet by marcgvky · · Score: 1

      phantonfive is not trolling. They always do recover.... but we do need to understand the mechanism that causes the bleaching. If it's human-induced, we need to curb that!

    12. Re:I'll bet by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem with the "small increase in temperature" line is that it doesn't take into account the actual sheer amount of energy required to raise mean surface and lower atmospheric temperatures even a fraction of degree. Climate pseudo-skeptics and the idiots that follow them don't acknowledge, because it kills their entire line of reasoning, that upping global mean temperature even a quarter of a degree means the atmosphere is trapping vastly greater amounts of solar radiation.

      And of course, for ocean-life there's a double-whammy, in that not only are ocean temperatures increased, but the oceans begin to absorb more CO2, altering pH levels. In the short term, the oceans can act, both due to their capacity to absorb heat and CO2, to mitigate rising temperatures, but it's only short term, and the costs to marine ecosystems is huge.

      At any rate, even the deniers are beginning to end the denialist game. Now it's all about "Oh sure, the Earth is warming, but what can we do, and what about those funny little brown people, why does Al Gore hate them so much?" They've entered the whole "eat drink and be merry for tomorrow will shall die stage", simply because they want to eke a few more years or decades of profits out of fossil fuels before the game is up.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    13. Re:I'll bet by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      What happens when fuck up the planet so much that it fucks us up? Do you think some H. sapiens is magically immune to climate change and pollution?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    14. Re:I'll bet by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      All that counts is an objection was made. For the denier, it is irrelevant if the objection is sensible, rational, or even has anything to do with the topic at hand. So long as they raise their hand and making some vaguely intelligible sound, apparently a whole field of scientific inquiry comes crashing down.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    15. Re:I'll bet by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Oh I didn't realise that the Great Barrier Reef was in Indonesia. Thanks for correcting that.

      Different reefs, very close to each other and water tends to be at common levels. The same winds and currents from the El Niño that push water from the west pacific toward the east pacific effects both Australia and Indonesia.

      The neighbouring countries are Papua New Guinea, Indonesia and East Timor to the north; the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu to the north-east; Australia

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    16. Re:I'll bet by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      Great story, but this year there is no el-nino, last year there was an el-nino.All 4 known bleaching events have occurred since 1980, 3 since 2000, the last two back to back. Also, Indonesia is several thousand kilometers NW of the GBR, so they are "close" in the same way alaska and florida are "close"

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    17. Re:I'll bet by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I see the moron anti-AGW mod points are out in force.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    18. Re:I'll bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's controversial that there are too many humans on the planet (and mosquitos, ticks, flies, jellyfish, rats, roaches, spiders!!). How to reduce the population size humanely and in a way that certain ethnic groups don't fear they're being wiped out is the challenge. Previously, mother nature and wars helped keep the population in check. Now, being highly developed helps, but countries that aren't at this stage are still growing.

    19. Re:I'll bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put to the poo in the loo

    20. Re:I'll bet by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Thanks for your insight. I will continue to go with the well funded scientists studying the reef in question, rather than a few studying something else and extrapolating.

    21. Re:I'll bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bogus. Its because of farm runoff.

    22. Re:I'll bet by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Take a look, Indonesia and Australia are only 186 nautical miles apart.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    23. Re:I'll bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UNIPCC speculates that, however, direct experiments prove this to be false. One case study showed sea snails growing thicker, stronger shells in response to additional CO2 in the environment. We are still waiting for emperical proof that this crazy illogical assertion by NOAA and the UNIPCC. they can be ignored until they provide more than a black box computer model, which they then dont release the data or code for.

      It is not upto anyone else to prove them right, it is their job. As such, logically, we cannot take their word for granted without evidence.

    24. Re:I'll bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Noted 1920's progressive Margarat Sangar had ideas to cull the black population by selective breeding and forced sterilization. Enviro-whacko progressives today would reinvent eugenics to cull libertarian/conservative populations that don't agree with them on climate change.

    25. Re:I'll bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making you worry about stuff is a big part of the Progressive handbook. It keeps you fearful and willing to let the government solve all your problems. And by solving, I mean Progressive elites live better while the rest of us continue to be miserable.

    26. Re: I'll bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being able to pass an English test would be a good first step to choose who gets to survive mass population reduction.

      Since Asia is the most overpopulated area, it is definitely worth starting there.

      Islam is definitely a good candidate for erradication.

      Ugly people and disabled people to.

      I think most of you are pretty ugly.

    27. Re:I'll bet by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      Sure, blame Trump, because the US is the great satan... GTFO.

      If you are really worried about pollution and destroying the planet, you need to talk to China first (BTW, they are a lot closer to the GBR than the US as well.)

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    28. Re:I'll bet by Luthair · · Score: 1

      China has over 4x the population of the USA. They emit less than half the carbon per capita of the USA.

    29. Re:I'll bet by BoogieChile · · Score: 1

      That's not just shit, that's pure, unadulterated bullshit.

    30. Re:I'll bet by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      China has over 4x the population of the USA. They emit less than half the carbon per capita of the USA.

      Not only that, China is working on reducing their CO2 output. Trump is working on increasing it massively.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    31. Re:I'll bet by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Take a look, Indonesia and Australia are only 186 nautical miles apart.

      Yeah, but the the two reefs are over 2000 miles apart

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    32. Re:I'll bet by Burz · · Score: 1

      Scientific American article about acidification (from CO2) contributing to Permian Extinction...

      Overview:
      https://www.scientificamerican...

      Full Article:
      http://burro.case.edu/Academic...

    33. Re:I'll bet by Burz · · Score: 1

      The thing you're missing is that the rate of change is a primary factor in how damaging global warming has become. Deniers say "we'll adapt", and aside from ignoring all the other life on this planet, downplay the fact that ecosystems we rely on are getting slammed.

      Most complex life forms can only adapt so far and so fast.

    34. Re:I'll bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What it really comes down to is that there are only two types of people who deny climate change: imbeciles and profiteers.

      The problem is that the profiteers are short-sighted fools who don't give a damn, and the imbeciles are too stupid to think, let alone learn. Ergo, our society is likely doomed.

    35. Re:I'll bet by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      I would assume that we die and the world lives on as if nothing ever happened. It's called natural selection and it will eventually kill all us humans or we will evolve into something quite different before it kills us all.

      And before you start wining about the world you are leaving for your children, why the hell would you have children if you believe they will just be inheriting a world of misery? That's fucking evil.

  2. don't worry, this is fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and burning more Coal is going to save us all.

    Sic.

    Yes this is Global Warming in Action but those who decry it will just stick their heads in the sand (again).
    All the President thinks about is going to Florida to play golf every weekend. I hope that the rising sea levels make that an impossibility very soon.
    OR will we see President Trump standing on the shoreline commanding the sea to go back (like a famous king in English History)?
    "I'm the President damm it. I signed this executive order commanding you to go back and not flood my golf course"

    1. Re:don't worry, this is fake news by vlad30 · · Score: 0

      and burning more Coal is going to save us all.

      Sic.

      Yes this is Global Warming in Action but those who decry it will just stick their heads in the sand (again).

      I really would like to fix the global warming problem but the Evil Super-villain in me, while I pat and stroke my white Persian cat, is debating wether wiping out 90% of the worlds human population via some cunning scheme like an orchestrated war, or letting them suffer through an extinction event is the more evil, so many pros and cons in both scenarios.

      --
      Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
    2. Re:don't worry, this is fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Trump is so fucking stupid, that he is a millionaire set for life who swindled himself into a presidency while you are... well...

      I wonder when people will stop perpetuating the idea that Trump is stupid and start treating him for what he really is, a very shrewd manipulator.
      At least accepting him for what he really is without underestimating him by undervaluing his intelligence, would put us on a more actionable path
      in regards to him as an issue.

      The stupidity of the people insulting Trump yet expecting him to listen to them after they are done throwing shit at him,
      stinks of even more arrogance than the mentioned famous English king.

    3. Re:don't worry, this is fake news by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      "Shrewd manipulators" can still be stupid/ignorant.

      Mostly what you need to 'manipulate' people is a position of power (or money) and to be a bit of a bully. If you're like that then money-grabbing people will try to be on your side. Look at you, you obviously admire any "millionaire set for life" and want a bit of that to rub off onto you.

      A healthy amount of sociopathic paranoia helps, too. Don't be afraid to fire/destroy anybody around you who makes you look bad.

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:don't worry, this is fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry but no. That's just feel good bullshit you are spewing.
      Getting into power and money to be able to be manipulative and a bully requires both intelligence and luck, and to maintain and pull the later requires twice as much since you are in a spotlight when you are in power and money.
      By your logic any idiot on this planet, including yourself, can get into the same power and money Trump managed to get himself into. Then do it motherfucker.
      I always hear the same shit your spewed spoken by many, but i'm yet to see any prove it by themselves.
      The reason so much shit can pass in the world is because there's too many idiots mixing their hate for someone with evaluating them as underneath your own level.
      This kind of contradictory mindset is the precise mental hiccup people would be wise to avoid. Nothing like projecting your own stupidity upon someone you hate,
      and thereby making what should be a serious fight into a jerk-off game.

    5. Re: don't worry, this is fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who cares about trump.

    6. Re:don't worry, this is fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is because every religion on earth has a "apocalypse" event foretold by their scripture, and letting it happen is just supposed to bring them closer to the rapture or whatever. There is a reason that religious nutcases and conservatives tend to be in the same boat. The fringe religious nuts don't care about leaving an earth to their children because they'll just be "raptured" away. Bullshit. Even if it were real, do you really think a benevolent god is going to make room in heaven for the people who cause the apocalyse? No. If you ever pirated anything, you're going to hell. If you ever said a racist remark, you're going to hell. Basically all nerds are going to hell.

      But that's the point. This -IS- hell.

    7. Re: don't worry, this is fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferers who have a compulsive need to twist everything that ever happens in the world (or on the internet) into a condemnation of Trump. If a minute goes by that they're not reminding everyone within earshot that Trump is literally Hitler, Satan, and Emperor Palpatine all rolled into one, they get restless. I imagine it's quite exhausting.

      At least this article is tangentially political, however, though any responsibility or involvement by Trump would imply the existence of time travel.

    8. Re:don't worry, this is fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we all just take a minute to appreciate the fact that the retarded and hypocritical "FAKE NEWS!!" meme backfired so hard on liberals and conservatives were so successful at appropriating it that now liberals are using it sarcastically?

    9. Re:don't worry, this is fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By your logic any idiot on this planet, including yourself, can get into the same power and money Trump managed to get himself into. Then do it motherfucker.

      I didn't/don't have a daddy to bankroll my empire and bail out my failures for me.

    10. Re:don't worry, this is fake news by XXongo · · Score: 2

      The "fake news" meme is neither retarded nor hypocritical. What it is, however, is overused.

      There was actual, fake news being spread around: "fake" meaning stuff that wasn't merely in error, or poorly researched, but completely made up: whole websites devoted to spreading "news" items with no connection to reality at all, for no other purpose than trolling for eyeballs.

      But then the "fake news" thing got to be a meme, and people started applying that tag to refer to anything that disagrees with their worldview. Once Donald Trump started applying it to stories about him in the actual news media, it had turned around 180: it was no longer about discrediting news that actually was fake, but about discrediting news that actually was true.

    11. Re:don't worry, this is fake news by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Don't forget, for maximum damage send the women to war so the population cannot rebound as soon as the war is over.

  3. I'm honestly blown away... by ckatko · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...by the amount of willful blindness in Australia's government.

    I mean, I thought for sure, once serious, real, things started dying on the planet, people would start caring. But I'm proven wrong every year.

    1. Re:I'm honestly blown away... by gravewax · · Score: 4, Informative

      In the scheme of things there is sweet fuck all the Australian government can do about it. The main contributing factor is ocean temperature changes, Australia trying to affect that in any significant way would be like trying to put out a bushfire by pissing on it.

    2. Re:I'm honestly blown away... by Aaron+B+Lingwood · · Score: 1

      Our government is going through a major innovation frenzy at the moment in the hope of inventing the steam engine.

      --
      [Rent This Space]
    3. Re:I'm honestly blown away... by vlad30 · · Score: 1

      Australian government hires an American Elvis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... to piss on bushfires

      --
      Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
    4. Re:I'm honestly blown away... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ah yea thats right we are doing nothing....

      fuck off you "know it all" basement dwelling yank....

      can you walk down the street without some gun violence happening...
      we can

    5. Re:I'm honestly blown away... by mrbester · · Score: 2

      Another contributing factor is the nutrient rich runoff from fertilised fields. This feeds phytoplankton. These are the primary diet of Crown of Thorns starfish larvae so more survive to adulthood. Then they switch diet and eat coral. Nothing eats them.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    6. Re:I'm honestly blown away... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off with your self righteous attitude, mate.

    7. Re:I'm honestly blown away... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not attach a dynamo to a tasmanian devil.

    8. Re:I'm honestly blown away... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep and they have spent a ton of money fixing that as that is something they can address, but fixing that won't solve bleaching. One of the solutions for the starfish has been a bacterial they infect the starfish with to kill them.

    9. Re:I'm honestly blown away... by aevan · · Score: 1

      True, but they can walk down the stairs without half the wildlife trying to kill them.

    10. Re:I'm honestly blown away... by dwywit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And every time someone mentions agricultural runoff (specifically from sugarcane), the lobbyists hit up the national party, and we're all reminded that natural resources and agriculture are untouchables.

      No, it can't be the farmers, they're all "generational custodians" who couldn't possibly do anything harmful to the environment.

      Apologies to those farmers who actually give a crap.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    11. Re:I'm honestly blown away... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      phytoplankton is only one of several theories as to the increased numbers, e.g. another is El nino events. regardless the Australian government has spent a lot on research and regulation to fix the runoff problem as well as a research into genealogy and bacterial warfare against the starfish. It was literally only a week ago that it was announced that within 5 years they expect to have a biological weapon against them now the weaknesses have been identified and are being exploited.

    12. Re:I'm honestly blown away... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know enough farmers to know they're no better or worse than any other large diverse group when it comes to giving a crap; but your logic is absolute bollocks. Ask a lot of farmers whether they'd prefer to spend $x on applying chemicals or $x/2 for the chemicals but $x*10 on the precision agriculture equipment they need to decrease their use and obviously the cost is a major motivator for them just like any other group.

      It's astoundingly naive to use aversion to costs as proof a group give a toss when the exact same motive would mean they would pollute more if it is more cost effective to waste some chemicals than employ more people, buy new equipment, pay for specialist advice etc in order to avoid doing so.

    13. Re:I'm honestly blown away... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Algae don't vote, so why would a government care?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:I'm honestly blown away... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Besides don't think of the reef as dying, so much as the living skin relocating to another region. The reef in it's current locations has died many times before, in fact is has been hundreds of metres above sea level as a coastal land formation and proof of that is in coral cores. The amount of living coral will reduce dramatically as it colonises new locales and when sufficient properties of the rich and greedy have gone underwater and something is done, in a century or two, the living coral will return. Kind of stupid but people are kind of stupid, mud monkeys voting for greed and greed provides the inevitable destructive outcomes. The coral is not bleaching, that is a pretty stupid description, the coral polyps are dying and due to changed environmental conditions new coral polyps are not resettling at the current locations.

      Pretty much, I am a human, fuck the corals, we will be drowning cities and displacing hundreds of millions of people, many will die, all because a tiny minority of insanely greedy arse holes, can not give up even the tiniest bit of greed, screaming for more wealth more power and revelling in the death they cause. The death of that coral is a warning about our own survival and thanks to the psychopathic arse holes in charge, our lives collectively are in serious danger.

      Oh well, I am old and will likely survive to see the panic start to develop with out being too affected by it, for the millennials, well, you guys and gals are fucked, your retirement is fucked and you children will be even worse off, seriously worse off. Not much I can do about the rest of my generation except to try to limit the harm they cause. Millenials though, will have some serious problems to deal, many will die early and you'll likely get to see seas at least two metres higher or even more. Millenials better get real angry, real fast because the consequences for you are pretty bad. Hey I am old and pretty confident about my future so passing on is no great concern apart from the possible discomfort associated with it. I would prefer to not have to deal with the mess being created by my generation of lead addled fools.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    15. Re:I'm honestly blown away... by hey! · · Score: 1

      The problem is timescale. It's really hard for political systems to react to things that are more than a decade away. In democracies it's a challenge to react to things that are going to happen after the next election.

      Things that don't happen quickly, and when once they happen can't be fixed quickly, are almost always ignored.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    16. Re:I'm honestly blown away... by Xest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Um, Australia is the biggest coal exporter in the world by quite a margin, so there certainly is something it could do - i.e. stop exporting coal.

      Australia has over a 3rd of the global coal market. It wont stop of course though, because money. If only they'd start utilising that desert for renewables, or start using their massive uranium reserves by pushing research into cleaner nuclear, or offering some of that uninhabitable territory for underground nuclear waste disposal instead.

      Bit of a wasted opportunity really, but hey, change is hard.

      But make no mistake, Australia could single handedly collapse the supply of coal, pushing it's prices up to be unaffordable and forcing a move to renewables, nuclear, and gas, which all avoid to a large degree the warming problem.

      Australia is literally selling out it's national heritage and it can only blame itself.

    17. Re:I'm honestly blown away... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      It is not farmers or agriculture per se.

      It is the american system, where a farmer is the others farmer enemy and needs to drive the other one out of business to buy his land to get a "little bit more land" to be able to sell his crops for a little bit less but can sell more in mass. Dictated by the big food corporations, who try to pressure every farmer to sell a little bit cheaper and hence a part of them goes bankrupt the surviving go into debt and buy the land, or new investors found new farms.

      Look how big a typical farm in USA is, or perhaps Australia has the same habit, no idea. And compare that how big a farm in Germany is. Or France, or Ireland, or Thailand for that matter. Those farmers have less land and a little bit more manual work and bit more workers, usually the whole year. Thailand e.g. usually has 3 harvests of rice and other crops per year.

      Yes, relatively seen the food prices are higher in Germany, and France, perhaps even in Thailand (relative to income I mean).

      However, the quality is different. E.g. Germany produces all the grains it needs for beer more or less on its own soil. Because this is mostly without even labeling it, "bio beer". It probably can not be labeled that way because one of the ingredients is not bio, hops for instance, I don't think that all the hops is bio in germany.

      Basically all the countries I mentioned above are self sustained in agriculture, but import some stuff, e.g. not sure how much grain we import for bread, or if we even do so.

      My point is: even in a highly settled country like Germany, we don't have miles long fields. Fields are separated by bushes, trees, small creeks/ditches. On the other hand we don't have such big plaines like in the US or Australia.

      On top of that the US want to export their bullshit food. Like hormone poisoned meat. The EU does not allow the import. 10 - 15 years ago that lead to a tax/tariff war between the USA and the EU, until the US gave up.

      Same about 20 years ago, the rice war with Japan. Rice is rather expensive in Japan. Because land is scarce and only certain hundreds of years old breeds can be cultivated. Rice farmers get stipends to keep them alive. The US wanted to force japan to remove the ban of imported rice. That ban (don't now to what extend) existed to protect the local farmers, and the rice price, and also because the arrogant Japs thought: their rice is pure, and foreign rice is tainted. The USA did everything to get the Japanese to change those laws: they refused. They simply said "our culture, and keeping our culture" is above profit. Especially if it is _your profit_.

      I don't even want to talk about the south americas ...

      Point is: the whole american system, but especially that conglomerate of farming, fast food, health, attached with companies like John Deer, behind them banks ... A "society" where only those can prosper that survive and (ab)use the predator capitalism, where your co citizens who have the same profession like you are considered "enemies" and need to be destroyed, driven out of business or in other ways gotten rid of. Well, that system makes no sense to craft(life in) a healthy society.

      Makes no sense. All that makes no sense. Erosion problems, Farm bankruptcies, pollution due to much fertilizers or pesticides/insecticides nearly don't exist. OTOH: right now we also have the problem of bee hive collapses due to Neonicotinoides (gosh, how do you spell this?) but also due to a big deal by climate change. The parasites that kill the bees when they try to go through the winter are much more now as it is not cold enough to kill them in enough amounts.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    18. Re:I'm honestly blown away... by Namarrgon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's plenty they could have done, and plenty they still could do. They could have started reducing emissions decades ago when the scientific evidence first became clear, and they could have invested in a world-leading solar industry instead of still more open-pit coal mines. They could also have given the Reef Marine Park Authority the funding and authority it needed to *effectively* deal with declining water quality, instead of the lip service it gets now, and at least reduced the huge additional stress on the Reef from agricultural run-off.

      Instead, they've repealed our price on carbon, declared that "coal is good for humanity", green-lit even more coal mines, and approved a massive expansion & dredging operation for a coal export port right in the middle of the Reef's coastline (overruling the GBRMPA and even changing the law to allow themselves to ignore expert advice). And to cap it all off, last year they censored any mention of the Reef from a UNESCO report on World Heritage Tourism Sites at Risk (on the ironic grounds that it might affect tourism) - just as the 2016 bleaching event was killing off an unprecedented 67% of the coral in the Reef's northern third.

      Even this extensive damage may have recovered somewhat, given 10-15 years of benign conditions, but a fourth bleaching event the very next year has crushed any hopes of that - the question now is whether we'll lose most of the middle third as well. But hey, at least the government has made sure we'll have coal for our tourists, if not coral.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    19. Re:I'm honestly blown away... by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      They'll need to spend billions more - or at least fix the laws on land-clearing and fertiliser overuse - if they want a hope of saving the Reef and its $6B annual tourism income & 69,000 associated jobs.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    20. Re:I'm honestly blown away... by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      Funny you should say that. The Abbott/Turnbull governments instructed the CSIRO to run a marsupial-based alternative energy production trial, but due to the ferocity of the Tasmanian devil and various government health and safety regulations they were ordered to use a Tasmanian tiger (thylacene) instead. Since the only known remaining example of the thylacene is a stuffed exhibit in a museum no power was produced, thus proving the conservative government's argument that alternative energy schemes aren't effective, and both cuts to CSIRO funding and the approval of the Adani coal mine are justified.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    21. Re:I'm honestly blown away... by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      Kudos, good sir. Love the reference.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    22. Re:I'm honestly blown away... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We could just get pissed and angry, but maybe a better idea is to try and come up with solutions.

    23. Re:I'm honestly blown away... by bjdevil66 · · Score: 1

      Let me sadly fix your logic for you.

      ...once serious, real, people with influence started dying on the planet, people with influence would start caring and doing something.

      Caring doesn't matter if the people in control don't.

    24. Re:I'm honestly blown away... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhh yes, the option of commit economic suicide so that the coal Australia exports can be replaced with the less efficient and dirty coal from other markets. That is the morons approach to doing something.

    25. Re:I'm honestly blown away... by mrbester · · Score: 1

      I saw that story, and had to look up when "South Sea Adventure" by Willard Price, a book I read in my childhood, was written. It specifically mentioned CoTs as being a problem for coral reefs (but didn't go into specifics of why the population was increasing so much. It was a children's book, after all.)

      This book was written in 1952. For this to be in a children's book it had to have been pretty well known for years beforehand. El Niño effects have been known for a lot less time.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    26. Re:I'm honestly blown away... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like drop-bears, that's by design; it's not a bug, it's a feature. Oh, and our bugs are deadly too.

    27. Re:I'm honestly blown away... by Xest · · Score: 1

      Australia's GDP is 1.5tn, it's coal export industry is worth 0.03tn.

      Yes it'd have an impact for sure, but it'd hardly kill their economy altogether.

      Importers couldn't merely switch over to other sources because there aren't any other sources that could scale up quick enough to cover the loss of 38% of the market. This would force prices sky high and put coal power out of business across the world because at that point it would be drastically cheaper to just switch to renewables. The idea that you could magically find equivalent to 38% of the world's coal from somewhere else and that there would be no increase in price to force coal power to become financially unviable shows an astounding level of economic ignorance.

      Of course, that assumes they went all out and did an overnight ban on it's use and export - even if Australia cut production by 5% it'd be enough to force up drastically the price of coal to make a decent number of coal projects no longer viable. We're already at a point where some renewables are cheaper than coal - helping make that divide even more obvious would make a big difference.

      I'm not proposing that they should actually do this of course, because it would leave countries across the globe with blackouts, and it would be an albeit non-fatal shock to the Australian economy (with a spike in unemployment). But the fact is that they could absolutely do something - jack up prices, cut production by at least some degree, tax it and so on to force a much more rapid reduction in the use of coal power than we have currently.

      So again, I'll make the same point as before - Australia absolutely could make massive contributions to cutting global emissions and hence act to save their natural heritage simply by using their massive coal market share to make coal increasingly non-viable. If Australia had any sense as a nation they'd be looking to do that whilst considering a replacement industry - renewables, nuclear, whatever. They have the land, resources, and money to do it, they just don't because certain people are comfortable with the money they make from the status quo, and are dinosaurs that can't adapt commercially to newer, cleaner, replacement industries, so they just do what they've always done, lobby as they've always lobbied, and Australia's tourism industry takes a hit as one of it's key draws dies off.

    28. Re:I'm honestly blown away... by Burz · · Score: 1

      Aside from coal exports, there is something to be said for actually setting an example. And Australia, at the behest of Rupert Murdoch's go-to-war-over-CO2 media empire, has set a bad one.

  4. Bleeching... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, at least we now know it's clean over there.

  5. If you haven't seen it... by tezbobobo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...then you're already too late.

    1. Re:If you haven't seen it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How come before 'climate change', the coral bleaching was caused by fresh-water runoff, but now it's caused by everything else?

    2. Re:If you haven't seen it... by gravewax · · Score: 3, Informative

      Bleaching isn't a single cause situation. fresh water does cause it (though not to the scales we currently see), also tidal changes, wind at low tide, storms, excessive UV light and of course the main one of water temperature are all causes. basically bleaching is simply a reaction to any environmental stress caused to the coral

    3. Re:If you haven't seen it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it was me. I've been bleaching the reef. Every time someone uses color on IRC I pour a little bleach onto the reef.

    4. Re:If you haven't seen it... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      ...then you're already too late.

      No it's not. But it will be soon. There are still many beautiful areas of the reef. But if you're going to see it, I wouldn't put it off.

  6. Meh, will be gone in next ice-age anyway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How did it survive the Holocene climate optimum, Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods (which had global temps as high or higher than current) if current temperatures are too high?

    Next ice age should be starting in next Millennia or so, and that will wipe it all out anyway as sea level drops ~130m.

    The geography and climate of earth are ever-changing.

    1. Re:Meh, will be gone in next ice-age anyway. by Viol8 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Those so called warm periods were localised. They didn't encompass the entire planet.

      "The geography and climate of earth are ever-changing."

      And? Trees fall down naturally in forests. Does that mean we shouldn't be concerned about illegal logging? And climate generally changes over the course of millions of years, not hundreds. Nature can't keep up.

    2. Re:Meh, will be gone in next ice-age anyway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your house won't last the next millennia either, so let's just tell the local fire station not to bother turning up if it happens to catch fire. The neighbourhood is ever-changing, after all.

    3. Re:Meh, will be gone in next ice-age anyway. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Those so called warm periods were localised. They didn't encompass the entire planet.

      Yes and every scientist who's income depend on the current warm period being unique and unprecedented, global in scale and perpetual, while warming have to be local and self-limited event agree!

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    4. Re: Meh, will be gone in next ice-age anyway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they're all on the take it was so simple to see!

    5. Re:Meh, will be gone in next ice-age anyway. by Viol8 · · Score: 2

      So I guess all the data is faked by The Man, right? FFS. Go back to bashing your bible.

    6. Re:Meh, will be gone in next ice-age anyway. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Those so called warm periods were localised. They didn't encompass the entire planet.

      Can you point to the studies that prove that?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    7. Re:Meh, will be gone in next ice-age anyway. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The next "ice age" was due in dozens if not hundreds of millennia, not in 1000 years.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    8. Re:Meh, will be gone in next ice-age anyway. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Those so called warm periods were localised.
      No they where not. How would that physically even possible?

      We know since 20 or more years that at the same times were "warm periods" in regions like China and Japan. It is just so that Wikipedia articles get updated slowly.

      It was never really disputed anyway, the tenor was: "we have no evidence", but evidence is found meanwhile. The question remains "how global" it was, because finding written evidence from south african tribes is a bit difficult ... or nordic Runes, or Etruscan inscriptions ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    9. Re:Meh, will be gone in next ice-age anyway. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      There are no such studies, in fact we have studies that imply that this is false.

      However the scientists who wrote books about it treated it like local phenomena as they e.g. only gathered data in Europe and did not look for Africa or Asia.

      Hence around the time when e.g. Wikipedia got filled with articles about it, the writers "assumed" it was a localized phenomena. However book authors like Hubert Lamb (https://sites.google.com/site/medievalwarmperiod/Home) believed that the period between 1100 - 1300 AD it was mainly focused around the north Atlantic, combining warms with enough rain fall (so we have the grow rings e.g. to estimate temperature). However he never gave a plausible reason why e.g. China, Japan, Africa was not affected.

      Meanwhile we know: they were effected. Because plenty of old history records about those times in China and Japan and India are discovered meanwhile. The question of those where affected at the exact same time. The man idea of Hubert Lamp are shifts in the Arctic Vortex. "The same thing" that caused the "unusually harsch (facepalm)" winter around the great lakes a few years ago.

      He thinks about the vortex shifting farer south. That is a bit surprising, as "how should that work?" The main thing that is interesting for our weather/climate about the vortex is: the count of wiggles in that sinuous line which circumflexes the pole. Has it one wiggle more, then it has a localized changed weather as e.g. at the great lakes as mentioned above.

      However those wiggles don't last long ... perhaps 3 to 6 month, and the slowly wander. So the question if we have such an wiggle going far south over central Russia (influencing German weather, because then we get lots of cold air moved from there to Germany) arises every few years again. In my eyes it is not rally plausible that changes in the Arctic Vortex last 200 years. BUT: I'm not a climate scientist ... I only have a good overview about weather phenomena.

      Anyway, Hubert Lamp wrote an influencing book, but focused on Europe and "hypotized" that the MWP affected only both sides of the north Atlantik and not the Pacific (Korea, China, India, Japan) but: never even tried to seek evidence. At least he did not write about it (his seeking for evidence, I mean).

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    10. Re:Meh, will be gone in next ice-age anyway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nature can't keep up.

      1. Nature isn't a person. It doesn't have wants or desires or anything like that.
      2. Oh, you didn't mean to imply that Nature is a person? So you also agree that the climate is Nature, then?
      3. Why do we care whether Nature can "keep up" or not (whatever that even means anyway)?

    11. Re:Meh, will be gone in next ice-age anyway. by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      Don't play silly semantic games when you're clearly clueless. Nature can't keep up means that natural selection can't keep up since it depends on the reproduction rate of the individual species. Bacteria can keep up with man made climate change, elephants and oak trees can't. Now run along and go play with your little school friends and let the adults continue the discussion.

  7. Liberal scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    How come before cigarettes, cancer was caused by radiation?

    Let me tell ya, it's a fake new plot by Obama loving scientists to outlaw cigarettes!! That's why!

    My logic is undeniable! I've got awards for science stuff, and I say we need to roll back regulation on tabacco that's holding back the American tabacco industry. Those Obama loving lying scientists and their so called 'science', they claim to know, but they don't know, I know, because my twitter feed told me so.

    Lets make American the leader in cigarettes again!

    1. Re:Liberal scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cancer caused by radiation? Are you sure? How many sunshine units are we talking here?

  8. 1,500km (900 miles) area - stretch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FYI: It is a stretch of 1500 linear km, not an area of 1500 km^2. The summary used the wrong terminology.

  9. and yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    think of the children dead and dying the world over. Oh, okay, some fucking rocks under shark-infested water is on the list too. This is why Trump thinks austrians need a booting.

  10. An excuse for every season by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "We gotta do something or the corals will be dead!"
    "The corals are fine, look, they're thriving."

    "The corals are gone, everything's dead!"
    "Well, then we can as well continue when it's too late to change anything anyway"

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:An excuse for every season by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      The corals are just pining for the fjords.

    2. Re:An excuse for every season by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      They are ... resting.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:An excuse for every season by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      "The corals are fine, look, they're thriving."

      My personal favourite was the numbnuts politician who "proved" that the coral reef was fine by going to one of the few places where there was no bleeching and proceeded to pick up a lovely beautifully coloured coral and bring it up to the surface for a photo op. ... likely killing it in the process.

      Same the guilty: Pauline Hanson, head of the climate denying One Nation party.

  11. Trump has doomed us all!!! DOOOOMED!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The coral reefs are only the START. Trump has been in office for 3 months and has already caused the total extinction of the human race! And he hasn't even broken out the nukes yet!

  12. burning more Coral is going to save us all. by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    That and switching from stone washed Jeans to coral washed Jeans. It's the only thing Kendal Jenner will wear.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re: burning more Coral is going to save us all. by Thud457 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Rick: Coral!

      Rick: Coral!
      Carl: What, Dad?!
      Rick: Coral, how can you tell a porpoise has a hot date?
      Carl : oh god, no Dad...
      Rick: Because he was bleaching his starfish!

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  13. OK, so pony up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Put off in escrow what you bet. And with it when it will recover.

    Deniers are heavy with the betting in the abstract. Only when it risks their personal wealth do they not care to risk things will get better.

  14. What's the real solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is a series of problems that exist at many levels.
    - World population is still growing
    - There are business reasons to look the other way
    - There are political reasons to look the other way
    - Much of the problem exists at a compounded micro level which means that each person contributes to the problem but doesn't feel they could contribute to the solution no matter what we do.
    - Human consumption is at a level which is frightening.
    - Recycling barely has any impact because we simply make too much crap we don't need.

    Honestly, I could write 25 pages of items of the problems involved.

    Let's be totally honest. No one in a position to actually make a difference can do so in any timeframe which is meaningful to them. Even if they could push through changes, whoever comes after them will just undo them. There is no political or business gain to making a difference.

    We don't feel connected to the problem. I consider myself pretty smart and I can't grasp the scale of the problem. I know I am breathing as I type this. I was breathing 40 years ago as well. I admit I am warmer than I was back then, but I live someplace cold so warmer feels good to me and those around me.

    I know damn well the problem needs to be solved, but to do so would require a massive shift to the way billions of people live and I know there is no chance in hell of that happening.

    So, how do we mitigate the problem in a way that could actually happen?

    What did we lose and what is the real impact of the loss?

    Can we breed a type of algae that can populate the warmer reefs? Is it more about the coral rejecting it? Can we force the coral to accept a new type of algae without doing far greater damage?

    If we can't recover the reef, can we recover otherwise? Can we build something which could replace the function of the reef?

    Is there any way we can use resources such as the trash pile in the middle of the pacific as materials to help with the problem?

    Is there a way we can build something like greenhouses in the desert wastes to mass produce oxygen?

    Is there a way to make it profitable enough to attract interest from people who otherwise would fight against it?

    I'm simply making things up now. But I do know we will never alter earth's population to make a meaningful change in time to fix the reef. Even if we could get a new head of the EPA in North America, what about Asia?

    Someone has to start thinking creatively to fix this instead of depending on humanity.

  15. Yeah, but the problem is you're an asshole. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not evil, just a shithead.

    Oh, not forgetting wilfully ignorant. You have preening pride in your intelligence and huge brain as being how you're better than animals, yet you wilfully ignore that brain because you're a fucking retard who prefers denial to a bruise to your ego or *potential* loss (though you ignore the "risk" of being better off in the changes) being risked.

  16. Why wait? Just suicide already. Job done. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because, as far as you know then (iow nothing, you're dead), there's no thinking about what may or may not happen, and no catastrophe occuring (or has already happened, whichever you feel you want to think of as the case when you're dead).

    If you're so tired of worrying about shit, die already. End of your worries. Nobody loses.

  17. Only a pessimist... by jlf278 · · Score: 2

    looks at the barrier reef as 2/3 dead. An optimist looks at the barrier as 1/3 struggling to stay alive.

    1. Re:Only a pessimist... by craigminah · · Score: 1

      Time top copyright the term, "average barrier reef" and collect my paycheck!

    2. Re:Only a pessimist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      optimist: we are all going to die due to irreversible global warming
      pessimist: we are all going to die extremely quickly due to irreversible global warming

  18. Liberal propagaadna by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "But the reefs! The ice! The bees! It's all propoganda by liberals for their global warming bs!

  19. A Better Explanation by GuyInUT · · Score: 1

    This Watts Up With That article (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/05/falling-sea-level-the-critical-factor-in-2016-great-barrier-reef-bleaching/) gives a much better explanation and addresses the claims that climate change is the reason.

    1. Re:A Better Explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally, a voice of reason

    2. Re:A Better Explanation by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, an 8th grade biology teacher and denialist who's probably never even seen the Great Barrier Reef, writes a blog article speculating that the peer-reviewed scientific evidence from one of the foremost Reef scientists is all completely wrong, because... other reefs have in the past been bleached by different causes. And you think this is a "better explanation" why, exactly?

      As usual, denialists can't scrape up any evidence that could survive peer review, so they spend their time denying the evidence that does.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  20. back to back bleaching by kiviQr · · Score: 1

    Bleaching is normal to some extent. Corals recover if they get a break. Problem here is they get 2 years - back to back of high temperature bleaching which lowers the chance of recovery.

  21. Extinction- yes, it happens. [Re:I'll bet] by XXongo · · Score: 1

    I'll bet they'll recover

    Oh yes, of course - corals have been around since the Cambrian or thereabouts...

    True, but.

    One type of coral or another has been around since the Cambrian, but species of corals have, in the past, been wiped out wholesale-- the Permian-Triassic mass extinction, in particular, (the "great dying") wiped out very close to all the reef-forming species, apparently due to the combination of anoxia and ocean acidification. In fact, 96% of all marine species were wiped out in that event.

    It took about eight million years before corals are re-established in the fossil record. That's eight million years with no reefs; a period much longer than humanity has been around.

    Most of the reef-forming coral species also went extinct at the K-T extinction. (The non-reef-forming corals were, for some reason, less affected.)

    Extinction happens.

  22. think global, act locally by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    too many mosquitos, ticks, flies, jellyfish, rats, roaches, spiders!!

    Don't forget when St Patrick drove all the snakes out of Ireland, they moved to Australia.

    Also, we should convince the Chinese that jellyfish are an aphrodisiac. Probably starfish, too.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  23. And NO Mention of CHEMTRAILS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does vast quantities of aluminum do to an ecosystem? What does barium, strontium, nano-particles do to an ecosystem?

    CHEMTRAILS, no one mentions chemtrails, and yet we ex[pect to find the reason somewhere else. Oh you want to donate to the diabetes research foundation, as you stand in front of a counter selling junk food, candy and cigarettes... we are so STUPID.

    Want to get SMART and notice something above your head?
    http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/

  24. SULFURIC ACID IN THE SKY - Thank you, Management by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well along with the aluminum in the chemtrails they are adding sulfuric acid:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/chemtrails/comments/63284x/this_started_killing_people_worldwide_and/

    CHEMTRAILS. Get to know and recognize them.

    -Management

  25. NO MENTION OF CHEMTRAILS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My previous comments on CHEMTRAILS have been removed... Chemtrails include aluminum, barium, strontium as well as Sulfuric ACID...

    http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/