Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Declare End to Global Coral Reef Bleaching Event (phys.org)
Scientists in the U.S. have announced Monday that a mass bleaching of coral reefs worldwide has finally ended after three years. "About three-quarters of the world's delicate coral reefs were damaged or killed by hot water in what scientists say was the largest coral catastrophe," reports Phys.Org. From the report: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced a global bleaching event in May 2014. It was worse than previous global bleaching events in 1998 and 2010. The forecast damage doesn't look widespread in the Indian Ocean, so the event loses its global scope. Bleaching will still be bad in the Caribbean and Pacific, but it'll be less severe than recent years, said NOAA coral reef watch coordinator C. Mark Eakin. Places like Australia's Great Barrier Reef, northwest Hawaii, Guam and parts of the Caribbean have been hit with back-to-back-to-back destruction, Eakin said. University of Victoria, British Columbia, coral reef scientist Julia Baum plans to travel to Christmas Island in the Pacific where the coral reefs have looked like ghost towns in recent years. While conditions are improving, it's too early to celebrate, said Eakin, adding that the world may be at a new normal where reefs are barely able to survive during good conditions.
It's not like it matters. Reality is not a democratic process, it will happen whether people like it or not.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What does this have to do with left vs right? I just don't get this demented US debate.
It was warmer than now during the early parts of this interglacial (source: Marcott et.al 2013). Also, the previous interglacial (the Eemian) was warmer than ours.
What happened with the coral reefs then?
it's in my head
Sure. But 100 million years ago, nobody gave a shit about temperatures being 5 degrees warmer. We didn't have to survive in that climate. And certainly not 7 billions of us.
Climate always changes. And life always finds a way to adapt. Not all life forms do, though. And if history is any indicator, being the apex predator during one of the big shifts in climate usually really, really sucked.
Hint: That would be us this time around.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
4 words: Berkeley Earth Surface Report. Touted as a totally independent look into climate change and AGW. Funded by the Koch brothers; looking at independent data sets; using raw data and so on; WUWT talked about how this is the definitive study to prove AGW or not.
Guess what: Same conclusion as all the other climate scientists.
WUWT also deleted any mention of this report. This is precisely what the deniers asked for but because the conclusion didn't match their expectations they just ignored the report. Do you think this makes deniers look like good scientists or just partisan hacks who don't believe in AGW because they just don't want to?
...you're saying that one of the oldest eukaryotes on the planet, one that has survived and flourished in much warmer and much colder earth climates, and which has likewise survived much more sudden ecological changes like massive globe-altering meteorites and sustained volcanism, maybe won't be as badly affected by a trivial warning as feared?
Do tell.
-Styopa
Hundreds of billions spent on climate research in the few decades.
And what exactly is your point? The evidence CLEARLY points to the climate research being useful. I'm fine with spending that money as long as the evidence supports further investigation. The only people seemingly opposed to further climate research are people who make money from opposing it. Don't tell me you are one of these conspiracy theorists who thinks scientists actually en-mass are trying to scam you out of your tax dollars. If scientists really wanted to make money in a corrupt fashion the real money would be in opposing climate research.
Hundreds of billions more spent on green energy subsidies (including failed companies that took off like thieves in the night).
TRILLIONS are spend on fossil fuel subsidies annually. Again, what exactly is your point? Clean energy is an unambiguously good thing and subsidies are necessary for a time to get the technology to the point where the economics work. In many cases they have already succeeded. This is true for all kinds of new technology. Not sure why you seem to have a beef with subsidizing clean energy when fossil fuels in 2016 were $5.3 Trillion globally. That is 6.5% of global GDP for an industry that is wildly profitable and clearly does not need subsidies.
Though fossil fuel companies to make billions, the amount of money spent to push the AGW agenda dwarfs anything on the other side.
Bullshit. First off, fossil fuel companies collectively make TRILLIONS, not billions. The amount of money in clean energy currently is positively dwarfed by the amount of money currently in fossil fuel production and sales. It's not even remotely close. Second, "AGW agenda"? Spare me your nonsensical ravings. When you want to have a fact based discussion then we can revisit. Until then you are just spouting vague conspiracy theory bullshit.