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.
...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.
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.
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.
...then you're already too late.
"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...
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.
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!
"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.
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.
> Climate deniers [...] complex [...]
See? There's the problem. Climate deniers and complex don't mix.
looks at the barrier reef as 2/3 dead. An optimist looks at the barrier as 1/3 struggling to stay alive.
So I guess all the data is faked by The Man, right? FFS. Go back to bashing your bible.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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