Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientists Discover Hidden Deep-Sea Coral Reef Off South Carolina Coast (cnn.com)

Posted by msmash on from the hidden-gem dept.

An anonymous reader shares a report: Little is known about the natural resources of the deep ocean off the United States' Southeast coast from Virginia to Georgia, so Deep Search 2018 was created to learn more by exploring the deep sea ecosystems. The project, consisting of scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, and the US Geological Survey, is nearing the end of its 15-day voyage aboard the research vessel Atlantis. A pair of dives in a submersible called Alvin confirmed the existence of the coral reef last week, and based on observations, researchers estimate the reef is at least 85 miles long. "This is a huge feature," expedition chief scientist Dr. Erik Cordes told HuffPost. "It's incredible that it stayed hidden off the US East Coast for so long." Cordes said the ecosystem is unlike anything he has seen, with "mountains" of corals.

27 of 49 comments (clear)

  1. Hidden from whom? by divide+overflow · · Score: 2, Interesting

    >"This is a huge feature," expedition chief scientist Dr. Erik Cordes told HuffPost. "It's incredible that it stayed hidden off the US East Coast for so long."

    I bet the U.S. Navy knew it was there but wasn't about to let the rest of the world know about it.

    1. Re:Hidden from whom? by SqueakyMouse · · Score: 3, Funny

      You mean you think that something fishy is going on here?

    2. Re:Hidden from whom? by MrMr · · Score: 4, Informative

      It wasn't hidden from wikipedia.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep-water_coral
      There's even a picture from a coral from South Carolina dating to 2002

    3. Re:Hidden from whom? by Megol · · Score: 1

      The worlds most detailed underwater maps are used by the US and Russian submarine fleets. Being of strategic significance parts of those maps are reasonably kept private or at least obfuscated. The most significant parts of those maps are parts close to the borders of strategically significant countries - that is coastal areas.
      The reason is simple: knowledge of such features enables submarines to hide more efficiently and for the other side to find those hiding submarines easier.

      TL;DR tinfoil is part of a healthy diet.

    4. Re: Hidden from whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Then again in 2010 Coral was discovered in Atlanta and then navigated North where Coral saw a deer and got shot, but sadly Coral didn't die. After getting better, for a time Coral turned into a homicidal maniac. Then Coral finally made it to Virginia and got bit, and Coral died, but we still had to hear about Coral.

    5. Re:Hidden from whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In that entire page there is only one reference to "Carolina", and it's a caption for the picture you mentioned, stating that the coral was found there. There's nothing about a reef off South Carolina. My guess is that when that piece of coral was found, they simply assumed it came from the Carribbean.

    6. Re:Hidden from whom? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      The worlds most detailed underwater maps are used by the US and Russian submarine fleets. Being of strategic significance parts of those maps are reasonably kept private or at least obfuscated. The most significant parts of those maps are parts close to the borders of strategically significant countries - that is coastal areas. The reason is simple: knowledge of such features enables submarines to hide more efficiently and for the other side to find those hiding submarines easier.

      TL;DR tinfoil is part of a healthy diet.

      TL;DR - a depth charge or three away from a very special reef bleaching event.

    7. Re:Hidden from whom? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Hidden from whom?

      Whether their sonar scans caused them to categorize it as coral, an undersea mountain ridge or even "Formation, Geological, Fucking, Random," I doubt very much that the Navy bothered to identify its composition.

    8. Re: Hidden from whom? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      There's a whole book - Zone One by Colson Whitehead - about such an attempt on Manhattan Island.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    9. Re: Hidden from whom? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I'm not a huge fan of Whitehead's (IMHO) verbose writing. But he's talented, and he manages to write a fairly entertaining cerebral zombie book :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    10. Re:Hidden from whom? by mcswell · · Score: 1

      Magma displacement.

  2. Well off course by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 2

    "It's incredible that it stayed hidden off the US East Coast for so long."

    Well off course it stayed hidden. It did not want to be destroyed like most other coral reefs around the world. If I was treated like that, I would stay hidden as well.

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
  3. Is it just off Inssmouth by any chance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just saying...

  4. Well, now that the worl knows about it... by Kokuyo · · Score: 1

    ...I'd say its days are numbered.

  5. What depth are these coral reefs? by ZombieEngineer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Apparently the Great Barrier Reef has moved in and out from the Australian coast line as the sea levels have risen and fallen with each ice age. From memory the difference in sea levels is about 30 meters.

    This reef could very well be a remanent coral reef from the last ice age and has evolved / adjusted to continue surviving at about 30 meters depth (which could also be the limit of light penetrating the ocean).

    The largest ships (oil tankers / cruise ships) have a draft between 12 to 20 meters so there is sufficient clearance that if these reefs are indeed in 30+ meters depth of water that no-one would of paid any attention.

    1. Re:What depth are these coral reefs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      According to this, the coral is 1/2 mile deep

    2. Re:What depth are these coral reefs? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 3, Informative

      and has evolved / adjusted to continue surviving at about 30 meters depth (which could also be the limit of light penetrating the ocean).

      Apparently the coral growing here is a little different to the ones nearer the water surface. They don't have a symbiotic relationship with algae like other coral- they feed on wee-beasties in the water so don't need sunlight. It is possible there is a lot more of this type of coral in the oceans than we know about.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:What depth are these coral reefs? by dargaud · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, there are actually deep water corals down to 2000m.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    4. Re:What depth are these coral reefs? by ortholattice · · Score: 1

      I hope they're deep enough to keep away from Paul Allen's yacht. In 2016 the anchor dragged through the Cayman Island's coral reef and destroyed it: https://www.businessinsider.co...

  6. Why would they hide it ? by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Pretty much the only interesting feature they may want to hide is topography, for obvious reason, but that also can't stay really hidden for very obvious reason too that oceanography scientist, and anybody with sonar frankly, can measure the depth and make precise map. What this article about is only they found coral where none was found, and frankly that would not bring anything for the navy or anybody to keep it secret. This ins't about topographic feature again, this is about the local ecology of those known topological features.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  7. Alvin by careysub · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One thing I thought interesting about this was something mentioned in the story in passing, the use of the submersible Alvin which has been in use longer than most /. readers have been alive. It was launched in 1964. It is something like the Ship of Theseus though, it has been through many upgrades and replacements including a new titanium pressure hull in 1973.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    1. Re:Alvin by CaptnCrud · · Score: 2

      I got a little nostalgic too seeing Alvin still in operation. When I was a kid I was fascinated with the titanic ship wreck and the technology used to investigate it (and seeing pictures of Alvin associated with it).

      Just for grins I looked up the wiki...all these years I had no idea the titanium pod could separate from the rest of the submersible in an emergency....cool.

  8. Quick let's drill for oil on it!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Gotta MAGMA!! That reef is holding us back!!

  9. Re:Sweet by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    Time to break out my free-diving fins and mask!

    It may not be the most scenic reef to visit. It sounds like it is mostly a monoculture of one specific type of not particularly attractive coral and it's deeper and probably not going to have all the scenic colourful reef fish.

    A great ecological find; not really much of a boost for tourism.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  10. Quick! by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

    Send Paul Allen to park his yacht over it so Gore can bitch about the climate! True fact: Paul Allen is single-handedly responsible for destroying 70% of the world's dead coral reefs by dragging his yacht anchor over them for months on end.

  11. Government wasting money? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Here's how to tell if the government is wasting money. If there's something called the "Bureau of Ocean Energy Management", it's wasting money.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  12. Here's the thing ... by fygment · · Score: 1

    ... for what, two decades at least, all i have seen in the media is how the coral reefs are disappearing due to climate change. So I pictured just a bunch of unadaptable polyps going extinct. But no, suddenly it appears that a deep reef was discovered and then it's revealed that there are such things as deep reefs, etc.

    The point is, all the brouhaha over " ... it will mean the disappearance of ... " should actually be suffixed by " ... as we currently know it." So be it the climate or whatever, the fuss is really about wanting things to stay the same. And they don't. Ever. Things _cannot_ stay the same and to want or expect them to is insanity.

    The challenge then is not to stop the change but instead to adapt to it and make the current state as close to what you desire as possible.

    Will adaptation be free or easy? No, there is no free lunch.

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.