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.
WTF are you talking about? You're absolutely free to go and do some research yourself, it's not like you can't. Stop pretending that religion has any scientific merit, or that science is nothing but bullshit voodoo.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
Article doesn't explain how the scientists know this is an end to the destruction versus a temporary reprieve? Seems like a stupid title altogether.
That is probably because the scientists don't actually say such a thing at all. I think, if one were to search through to a more trustworthy source, it would say something like 'The coral bleaching event that has unfolded over the last 3 years seems to be less severe this year, and this may be a sign that it is coming to an end, if this trend continues.' - and then a lot of explanations about what observations and expectations they base this on. Science is almost never startling or sensational; and in the very rare cases when it is, it will get ignored for a long time as being speculative. Just the way of the world; so when you see an sensational headline about a scientific discovery on a pop-sci website, it can probably be safely ignored.
What does this have to do with left vs right? I just don't get this demented US debate.
Last job I had, I worked with a number of physicists working in climatography and oceanography. Thats pretty much their take too. The politics *baffle* them. Conservative politiciians declariing that theres some sort of sneaky conspiriacy going on, meanwhile actual scientists are just following the evidence where it leads, regardless of what the policy wonks proclaimed. Hell at one point conservative newspaper types started announcing some bad spooky conspiracy theory that the bureau of meteorology was lying about temperatures. Well II sure as fuck never heard about this sinister plot to lie about weatherr (FOR SOME REASON) when I was writing the bloody code running some of those "lying"weather statiions. I'm kinda glad I'm not in that job anymore, its frusturating as hell watching right wing newspaper and blog commenters straight up lie about you and not being able to do a damn thing about it, without gettiing in the target sights of some very shady campaiigners
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
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.
I'm pretty sure you can tell me how to get rich from saying that the coral reefs turn white. I've heard crazy shit before, but this one sure is new.
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?
And no matter how high the sea levels rise, we won't change a thing.
First, the narrative was "there is no rising sea levels, so we needn't change our behaviour". Today we have "yeah, but it's normal and nothing we can influence, so we needn't change our behaviour". And we'll eventually end up with "yeah, we pretty much fucked up, but it's too late to do anything anyway, so we needn't change our behaviour".
So no matter what you do, you can still drive your SUV.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Last job I had, I worked with a number of physicists working in climatography and oceanography. Thats pretty much their take too. The politics *baffle* them. Conservative politiciians declariing that theres some sort of sneaky conspiriacy going on, meanwhile actual scientists are just following the evidence where it leads, regardless of what the policy wonks proclaimed.
This one is easy. First follow the money. Oil and gas companies have a vested and huge financial interest in avoiding any science that might point a finger at them and they support and fund conservative politics that lead to that might lead to a reduction in the use of fossil fuels. This is simply money interests protecting the status quo. Second, look at the ideology. Conservative's purport to like small government and many of the environmental issues we have are best solved through regulation which to various degrees means larger government. So this makes an easy target for conservative pundits who want to make a buck on the backs of credulous people who inherently distrust government. It's little different from a preacher to tells people that the bible says homosexuality is bad. People listen to the preacher even when what he says is ridiculous. Third is simply tribalism. A lot of liberals are concerned about the environment and so the conservatives simply treat them as The Other. Because the opposition likes it then it must be bad. Whether or not this is contrary to their own self interest becomes irrelevant.
Ironically the republicans used to be rather forward thinking about environmental issues. The EPA and NOAA came into existence under republican administrations. It is a fairly recent development that conservatives started using the environment as a political punching bag. I find it hugely irritating that the notions of clean water and a hospitable climate could possibly be items of contention but it's amazing what some people will do to make a buck and gain power.
40k a year! Wow! Maybe I should quit my job, go to university again, get a master's degree, get a doctorate, publish a few dozen scientific articles so I can get noticed and finally get that sweet, sweet 40k grant money!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
...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
Please. I don't believe you're so dense, if you try to derail an argument, at least try to make it less blatantly stupid.
We're the dominant life form on this planet. And so far, all of the major catastrophes on this planet had a devastating effect on whatever animal was the top dog back then. Simply due to them needing vast amounts of resources for survival, and resources being scarce during catastrophic times.
In other words, it doesn't look good for us. But that's ok. The planet will survive our demise.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I paraphrase George Carlin when I say, "The Earth will be fine. The people are fucked."
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
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.
What does this have to do with left vs right? I just don't get this demented US debate.
Because demented it is. Don't think of it as left vs right, but more as batshit crazy that has succeeded in denial of what is in front of it's eyes.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
There is absolutely no science whatsoever that indicates any climate effects that will support a statement like "the people are fucked".
(IPCC AR5 WGII is a good start for more information on the subject)
it's in my head
True, of course (maybe with some slight adjustment to the exact timing). The idea that the globe is ever static is a problem when talking about "survival" of species.
The Great Barrier Reef is about 500,000 years old, but it hasn't always looked as it does today. Reefs on Australia's continental shelf have taken on many forms, depending on the sea level, and the current formation is about 6,000 to 8,000 years old.
According to the Australian Institute of Marine Science and other scientific research, the current reef began to form during the Last Glacial Maximum. This period, which occurred from about 26,500 years ago to 19,000 to 20,000 years ago, ushered in significant environmental changes in the region, including a dramatic drop in sea levels.
The land that forms the base of the Great Barrier Reef is the remains of the sediments of the Great Dividing Range, Australia's largest mountain range. About 13,000 years ago, the sea level was 200 feet (61 meters) lower than the current level, and corals began to grow around the hills of the coastal plain, which had become continental islands. The sea level continued to rise during a warming period as glaciers melted. Most of the continental islands were submerged, and the coral remained to form the reefs and cays (low-elevation sandy islands) of today.
https://www.livescience.com/62...
it's in my head
I am not a coral-ologist, and the article wasn't much help. Why, or how, did the bleaching stop? Was it something the biologists/oceanographers did to curtail this or did, ah.. uh.. ah.. nature find a way?
Right, we'll probably take the rest of life down with us. At least we have the ability to.
Feeding and sheltering 7 billion people is still something you can't do easily. Hell, we can't even do it now that we don't have to deal with a crisis, you think we'll be more capable of doing it when things get worse?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.