Slashdot Mirror


Great Barrier Reef Has Died Five Times In Last 30,000 Years, Study Says (newsweek.com)

schwit1 quotes a report from Newsweek: You may well have heard that Australia's iconic Great Barrier Reef is dying as warmer and more acidic waters bleach the system's vibrant coral reefs. In fact, a heat wave killed nearly a third of the system's corals in 2016. Now, scientists writing in the journal Nature Geoscience have discovered the reef has bounced back from near-extinction five times in the last 30,000 years. The current stresses, however, are probably far more intense than those felt in the past.

Low sea levels 30,000 and 22,000 years ago killed coral by air exposure. The remaining reef shifted seaward and eventually bounced back. Rising sea levels -- like those we see today -- killed off the coral twice between 13,000 and 17,000 years ago. This time, coral inched close to land to survive. The reef system, the scientists think, migrated up to 60 inches a year in the face of a changing environment. The last of the five great die-offs occurred about 10,000 years ago, and was likely caused by a huge influx of sediment, a reduction in water quality and a general sea level rise. The reef system may be due for another die-off sometime in the next few thousand years "if it follows its past geological pattern," study author Jody Webster told AFP. "But whether human-induced climate change will hasten that death remains to be seen."

16 of 97 comments (clear)

  1. Corals have been around by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    for half a billion years.

    They have had worse.

    1. Re:Corals have been around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They have had worse.

      Of course, and they will bounce back, even if it takes 5000 years, but that isn't the point. A large proportion of fisheries depend on coral reefs, so losing those species rich environments for a long time will hit humanity hard enough that we can feel it. Add to that the other consequences of climate change to food production, migration and so on, and things look not at all rosy. You may prefer to bury your head and pretend everything is going to be fine, but I bet you and those like you will howl the loudest when you find you have to live with the reality of it. And I hope people will point out to you, in no uncertain terms, that you own a big chunk of the responsibility for it.

    2. Re:Corals have been around by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      Of course, and they will bounce back, even if it takes 5000 years

      It's not a question of it recovering, or how long. Given time, despite everything mankind does to the planet, the Earth will eventually recover. New species will evolved to replace extinct ones. Environments poisoned will recover.

      No, the question is. Will be be around to see these recover?

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  2. It always bounces back by OrangeTide · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Except when it doesn't.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  3. Re:Wait a second.. Nature isn't in a vacuum? NO WA by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All of these chicken littles view these changes in nature as if they are happening in a vacuum.

    Nature is like a beanbag. Push here and it pops out there. One change spawns another change. Nothing is static and nature isn't in a vacuum.

    Tell that to the Mammoths, Dinosaurs, and the obligate anaerobes that predated cyanobacteria.

    Just because a system is resilient doesn't mean you can do whatever the hell you want to it and come out fine.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  4. Re:The reef is not 13,000 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    We show that reefs migrated seaward as sea level fell to its lowest level during the most recent glaciation (~20.5–20.7 thousand years ago (ka)), then landward as the shelf flooded and ocean temperatures increased during the subsequent deglacial period (~20–10ka).

    They didn't just look at where the reef is now, but where it has been in the past. It has an ability to migrate at 0.2-1.5m/year. The reef is older, but it wasn't always in the same place. Source

  5. Re:Wait a second.. Nature isn't in a vacuum? NO WA by bazorg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Push the beanbag of coral reefs and the ecosystem that provides humans with fisheries pops. Push the fisheries and populations of SE Asia will pop across borders en masse, as they are faced with serious threat of poverty and famine. This all leads to suffering and conflict that did not need to happen.

    Call me chicken little all you like, I still think that politics is about exercising power AND ethics, not just observing and passively waiting for the next equilibrium.

  6. Re:Wait a second.. Nature isn't in a vacuum? NO WA by bradley13 · · Score: 2

    All of these chicken littles view these changes in nature as if they are happening in a vacuum.

    Nature is like a beanbag. Push here and it pops out there. One change spawns another change. Nothing is static and nature isn't in a vacuum.

    Tell that to the Mammoths, Dinosaurs, and the obligate anaerobes that predated cyanobacteria.

    Just because a system is resilient doesn't mean you can do whatever the hell you want to it and come out fine.

    Mammoths turned into elephants. Dinosaurs turned into birds. Etc.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
  7. Re:Wait a second.. Nature isn't in a vacuum? NO WA by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

    I take it to mean that the loss that the Great Barrier Reef is currently experiencing is not as great a threat (at the present moment) as some portray it.

    We don't know that. Just because it has suffered before, and recovered, doesn't say much about current threat. It could be worse this time.

    That is, the best solution can be found and applied instead of a stop-gap or knee-jerk remedy.

    We already know the best solution, but we don't want to apply it.

  8. Re:Wait a second.. Nature isn't in a vacuum? NO WA by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

    Mammoths turned into elephants. Dinosaurs turned into birds. Etc.

    That's not how evolution works.

  9. Re:Fear mongering by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is all fear mongering. There are reefs in the world with water FAR hotter than the great barrier reef. Despite what researchers who benefit from government funding would like you to believe, there is far from agreement that the reef is in any way in trouble.

    If that's fearmongering then your post is stupidmongering.

    Yes there are warmer reefs elsewhere. That doesn't mean you can magically transform the great barrier reef into a hot water reef without it first crashing badly and for a long time, and losing the huge diversity that's present there now.

    I like how you layer it on with a nice chunk of anti-research and anti-government paranoia. Though it's kind of entertaining that you thing researchers do it for the money.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  10. Most know nothing. by Charcharodon · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The reef is nothing more than the dead skeletons of corals. It is not "alive" The living portion of the reef, is just the top few centimeters. They do not take millions of years to form, they take weeks/months/years to form, much like plants on land. They thrive where ever the conditions are right. When the conditions change the corals die, and the reef becomes barren. That is not the end of the story as the political eco opportunists would have you believe. The spawning methods of corals literally cast their offspring everywhere so there is always corals trying to establish new reefs in nearly every part of the ocean. As the conditions change new areas become habitable for the corals and their numbers will rapidly grow.

    If things swing back the other way dead corals will bounce back within a year or two.

    Now specific man-made problems such as silting, runoff, fishing, recreational diving, and anchor dragging and kill off corals in an area and should be addressed as solvable solutions. Trying fight climate change well that is just pissing into the wind. Even without the so called global warming caused by mankind the reefs were going to die off and relocated anyway.

    1. Re:Most know nothing. by careysub · · Score: 2, Informative

      So what you are saying is that your lead sentence is false, the reef is more than the dead skeletons of corals, given that part of it is alive. Further, although you do not acknowledge it or perhaps even know it, it is also an entire eco-system consisting of more than just corals - in fact they are the most diverse ecosystems in the entire ocean.

      The notion that "dead corals will bounce back within a year or two" is similar to asserting - "Hey, trees sprout from seeds every spring! So if an old-growth forest is destroyed, it can bounce back the very next year!"

      Big, big different between the earliest stages of recolonization and a mature ecosystem.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  11. Re:Fear mongering by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There are reefs in the world with water FAR hotter than the great barrier reef.

    Yes there are and they adapted to their environment over a very long time. Thanks for pointing out you don't actually know much about the topic or the reason why the problem exists.

    Despite what researchers who benefit from government funding would like you to believe

    There is no shortage of government or private funding for researchers in a myriad of topics both for and against every topic. If you think because the government provided funding for research that researchers are somehow biased to producing results requiring a small fortune of government spending and mass change in behav.... wait, that's anti-bias. What was your point here? That the results are the opposite of the expected funding source and therefore should be taken extra serious because researchers are all corrupt and biased?

    there is far from agreement that the reef is in any way in trouble

    Yeah I know. It's just a manufactured idea from China. Just as manufactured as the idea that you are not a complete moron.

  12. If only.... by theblkadder · · Score: 2

    They had sensible C02 emission laws 30,000 years ago!

    --
    Earth is a single point of failure.
  13. Re:Separating human activity from natural causes by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

    Apparently, the current anthropogenic sea rise is indistinguishable from noise. That would mean it would be normal occurrence, regardless of what we believe...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!