Slashdot Mirror
'Dead Corals Don't Make Babies': Great Barrier Reef Losing Its Ability To Recover From Bleaching (cnn.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: Successive ocean heat waves are not only damaging Australia's Great Barrier Reef, they are compromising its ability to recover, raising the risk of "widespread ecological collapse," a new study has found. The 2,300-kilometer-long (1,500 mile) reef has endured multiple large-scale "bleaching" events caused by above-average water temperatures in the last two decades, including back-to-back occurrences in 2016 and 2017.
The new study, released Wednesday in the journal Nature, examined the number of adult corals which survived these two events and how many new corals they created to replenish the reef in 2018.
The answer was as bleak as it was stark: "Dead corals don't make babies," the study's lead author, Terry Hughes, said in a press release. Scientists working on the study found the loss in adult corals caused a "crash in coral replenishment" on the reef, as heat stresses brought about by warming ocean temperatures impacted the ability of coral to heal. "The number of new corals settling on the Great Barrier Reef declined by 89% following the unprecedented loss of adult corals from global warming in 2016 and 2017," said Hughes. Scientists working on the report say they would expect coral recruitment to recover over the next 5 to 10 years, as more corals reach sexual maturity, but only in the absence of another bleaching event. However, with sea temperatures continuing to rise this seems a near-impossiblity.
The answer was as bleak as it was stark: "Dead corals don't make babies," the study's lead author, Terry Hughes, said in a press release. Scientists working on the study found the loss in adult corals caused a "crash in coral replenishment" on the reef, as heat stresses brought about by warming ocean temperatures impacted the ability of coral to heal. "The number of new corals settling on the Great Barrier Reef declined by 89% following the unprecedented loss of adult corals from global warming in 2016 and 2017," said Hughes. Scientists working on the report say they would expect coral recruitment to recover over the next 5 to 10 years, as more corals reach sexual maturity, but only in the absence of another bleaching event. However, with sea temperatures continuing to rise this seems a near-impossiblity.
With their "vast science backgrounds" lol. Denialist idiots will always be against any environmental story, it doesn't even matter what it is. They'd rather die than understand science.
" if you got your stories straight. " = Yes, every scientist in the world needs to get their data to align in marching lock step, like Fox News does. There has to be a choral unison of agreement, in all niches. Great point, moron.
Corals have been around for 500 million years and countles cycles of warming and cooling cycles during that time.
Every prior warming and cooling cycle has happened over thousands of years which gave species the chance to adapt via genetic mutation over multiple generations. What makes this one so different is that this has happened in mere decades which has left no time for adaptation to occur.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Please enlighten everyone about what happened to the corals in the Great Barrier Reed during the Medieval Warm Period. It was quite warm then, too, yet we still have plenty of corals today.
The Medieval Warm Period was a similar temperatures in the 1980s. It's gotten a lot warmer since then.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Interesting - you should do a bit of googling before you mention a period that was global cooler than present. There are a few papers specifically looking at the south pacific, and specifically the east coast of Australia during that period of time. It was cooler and dryer than present during the Medieval warm period. It kind of corresponds to a prolonged La-Nina period.
to fix it, smells kinda musky. ?
[($)]
https://climatecenter.fsu.edu/...
"What we see is that the early part of the record has been adjusted downward (cooler) by over half a degree F"
If you're interested in learning more, freshman congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez gives a weekly(ish) live stream via instagram to bring a lot more climate studies knowledge to the masses; here's one from yesterday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Well, 500 million might be a bit too much, but yes. Temperatures leaves traceable changes.
For example clam shells have temperature dependent rings much like trees.
So by digging up and comparing clam shells from a specific time you can get a rough idea of temperature changes.
But there are thousands of different ways so it is a lot of work to get accurate temperature estimations.
Evolution does not need to take millions of years. It depends on the species.
http://discovermagazine.com/2015/march/19-life-in-the-fast-lane
"Researchers who once assumed evolution required millennia are documenting species adapting in mere decades, or even shorter time frames."
It's interesting how the frequency of news articles about environmental disasters seems to be increasing. Is this just because people are more interested in these stories nowadays or is the planet plunging itself in the deep pit of irreversible warming, becoming more unihabitable for people every day?
-- Cheers!
But aqua man sucks.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
But I basically come here exactly for their comments. It's a bit like reading rebuttals from religious nutjobs who get cornered more and more and come up with more and more ridiculous explanations for clinging to their beliefs.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I wouldn't trust AOC to give me the time of day after she claimed all of her constituents were illegal aliens.
On climate change, I'm convinced she watched Al Gore's videos from the late 1990s and then took a bunch of LSD.
In other news, when did scientists stop believing in evolution? Climate has always changed, with great die-offs of species that aren't well adapted to the new climate, but some individuals due to genetic mutation survive and end up colonizing the new climate.
So while 99% of coral right now might not be able to withstand the higher temperatures, the large number of coral individuals almost guarantees that a new form of coral will arise that *can* withstand the higher temperatures.
The same thing happens with silly human cultures. Kill off the stupid humans who think living by the seashore under an elevation of 300 meters is a good idea, and humans living inland will gain in political strength and build a new culture. There is no need to panic over climate change at all.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Apparently leftist retards with mod points came to QQ.
Every prior warming and cooling cycle has happened over thousands of years which gave species the chance to adapt
Not only that, the gp is conflating coral reefs in general with the Great Barrier Reef in particular. The GBR is relatively young, and its modern form is only 8,000 years old. It is not invulnerable to change. The GBR contributed $5.68 billion to the Australian economy in 2011-12 and it generated almost 69,000 full-time equivalent jobs.
Oh well, you'll believe what you want.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T86IIKK9FRg
8000 years ago the Sabertooth Tiger and Wooly Mammoth were already gone.
But the Australian Aborigines had been there for 80,000 years already.
THINGS CHANGE!
You do know that genetic mutation can happen in one generation, right? And anything that doesn't kill 100% of a species in an extremely short span of time, will simply be evolved around?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Blame Bitcoin
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Last I saw, none of those were asexual species- which is what coral are.
Asexual species are hyperevolutionary because they only need ONE individual with ONE genetic mutation to colonize a whole new ecosystem.
Anything that does not kill off *every single coral* in one single event, will not make this species go extinct.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Well, at least you make it easy to not trust you at all. I wonder if you're wholeheartedly misstating and exaggerating the power of evolution just like you are with regard to AOC. She did NOT say 'all of her constituents were illegal aliens.' She believes she represents ALL of the people who reside in her district regardless of immigration status. Which of course she does. The actual quote:
"Mr. Kobach later emailed to you on July 14 writing that the lack of the citizenship question ‘leads to the problem that aliens who do not actually reside in the United States are still counted for congressional apportionment services. Of course they do reside in the United States. They reside in my district. They’re my constituents."
Billion. With a B.
That is how long corals have been around.
If you think driving SUVs is going to be the death of them you are an idiot.
Almost all complex organisms reproduce sexually (some of them also reproduce asexually) , because it increases variability by mixing and matching and by harboring recessive genes. Sexual species have been observed to evolve faster than asexual ones.
It still takes more than decades or centuries,
Tell me again how long humans have been using antibiotics? And yet we have "drug resistant strains", even though we have very intelligent people targeting them directly.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
How long does it take for a coral community to recover from a death event? What about following man-made disturbances where the environment has undergone permanent change? What if the change is ongoing?
The Atlantic cod still exists as a species, but that's of little comfort to the folks who once had jobs linked to the fishery.
Likewise, your assurances that the coral species will probably not go extinct says little about whether the Great Barrier Reef will be around for our children to enjoy, or the fate of the ~70,000 associated jobs.
Corals will still be around long after all the Anonymous Cowards have died off as well.
What was it like during the time that the dinosaurs went extinct? There was a lot of volcanic activity and the atmosphere was filled with dust from an asteroid collision yes?
What was the temperature like then and how did the coral survive that?