AI Identifies Heat-Resistant Coral Reefs In Indonesia (theguardian.com) 86
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Between 2014 and 2017, the world's reefs endured the worst coral bleaching event in history, as the cyclical El Nino climate event combined with anthropogenic warming to cause unprecedented increases in water temperature. But the June survey, funded by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen's family foundation, found the Sulawesi reefs were surprisingly healthy. In fact they were in better condition than when they were originally surveyed in 2014 -- a surprise for British scientist Dr Emma Kennedy, who led the research team.
A combination of 360-degree imaging tech and Artificial Intelligence (AI) allowed scientists to gather and analyze more than 56,000 images of shallow water reefs. Over the course of a six-week voyage, the team deployed underwater scooters fitted with 360 degree cameras that allowed them to photograph up to 1.5 miles of reef per dive, covering a total of 1487 square miles in total. Researchers at the University of Queensland in Australia then used cutting edge AI software to handle the normally laborious process of identifying and cataloguing the reef imagery. Using the latest Deep Learning tech, they 'taught' the AI how to detect patterns in the complex contours and textures of the reef imagery and thus recognize different types of coral and other reef invertebrates. Once the AI had shown between 400 and 600 images, it was able to process images autonomously. The Ocean Agency has published a short 2-minute video on YouTube about the Coral Triangle survey.
A combination of 360-degree imaging tech and Artificial Intelligence (AI) allowed scientists to gather and analyze more than 56,000 images of shallow water reefs. Over the course of a six-week voyage, the team deployed underwater scooters fitted with 360 degree cameras that allowed them to photograph up to 1.5 miles of reef per dive, covering a total of 1487 square miles in total. Researchers at the University of Queensland in Australia then used cutting edge AI software to handle the normally laborious process of identifying and cataloguing the reef imagery. Using the latest Deep Learning tech, they 'taught' the AI how to detect patterns in the complex contours and textures of the reef imagery and thus recognize different types of coral and other reef invertebrates. Once the AI had shown between 400 and 600 images, it was able to process images autonomously. The Ocean Agency has published a short 2-minute video on YouTube about the Coral Triangle survey.
Trying to make up (Score:2)
I wonder if Paul's family gave them the money because his boat almost completely destroyed a reef a couple years back.
Way cool (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It is nice that Paul Allen is actually funding things that really help society. Finding coral that can deal with the heat is really important to a lot of ocean life.
Probably different species involved than the species that can't survive the heat. Yeah, fantastic that there is a survivor; but there is still going to be a mass extinction of coral species unfortunately.
Re:Way cool (Score:4, Insightful)
It is nice that Paul Allen is actually funding things that really help society. Finding coral that can deal with the heat is really important to a lot of ocean life.
Probably different species involved than the species that can't survive the heat. Yeah, fantastic that there is a survivor; but there is still going to be a mass extinction of coral species unfortunately.
You are absolutely right. We are heading towards an extinction event. The only thing left to do (sans finding a way to revert global heat-up) is to repopulate devastated areas with more heat-resistance species.
I think that will be a necessity (since live reefs are an ecological necessity), but this implies we are going to start treating reefs the way we treat agriculture - using more resistant crops to phase out those that aren't.
A necessary step, but not a pretty one no matter how we slice it.
Re: (Score:2)
Information: A minor species of coral that isn't as vulnerable to heat doesn't cancel out all the vast swathes of coral that's already dead/dying from heatstroke.
But I'm sure this "news" will be published all over the USA's disinformation system before breakfast.
Re: (Score:1)
Or there are varieties of coral that can take a few degrees more than others. We know so little, we could be looking at the equivalent of all breeds of dog dying out, except say beagles. In some years time all dogs are beagles. And similarly, we risk that in some years from now the only coral will be one or two kinds of coral, not a collection of 100+ types of coral.
Re: Or Maybe (Score:2)
Re: Or Maybe (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
a) Can we talk about both things?
b) Condoms in Africa is a religious issue. We can help beat that by promoting critical thinking via. discussions about, eg., global warming.
Re:Or Maybe (Score:4, Interesting)
That really isn't the point though, as once you've killed off that bottom 50%, the surviving population that will pass on its genes are the 50% that are more tolerant of heat. Assuming the change doesn't happen to rapidly as to cause an extinction, the parts of the population with the genes most fit for the new environment will be more reproductively successful and you eventually end up with a population that is more suited to its environment.
Life as a whole is pretty damned resilient. After Chernobyl, there were some people who thought it would be a lifeless radioactive hellscape for some time, but it didn't take long for some plants to develop a tolerance for the radiation and thrive in an area that would be deadly for everything else that didn't adapt to it. I don't think we should use this is an excuse to allow ourselves to damage the environment, but rather that we should reject arguments calling for radical action because otherwise life will perish.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. I think a lot of people are to committed to things never changing. Life adapts its what life does, people adapt its what people do. However I think we should still watch, think, and act carefully.
Things will change, they may change in ways we will like and ways we wont. A lot produce will be larger and more energy dense as C02 levels go up. That might actually help us feed larger populations. Other things are happening we might not like so well.
Chernobyl is a fine example. Overall the biome migh
Re: (Score:3)
Things will change, they may change in ways we will like and ways we wont. A lot produce will be larger and more energy dense as C02 levels go up. That might actually help us feed larger populations. Other things are happening we might not like so well.
Higher CO2 levels will not help us feed larger populations. While it is true that increased CO2 levels do assist photosynthesis and increase plant growth, at least in certain plants. But this one minor advantage pales in comparison to the negative consequences of CO2. First off the increase in plant growth has diminishing returns, and eventually plateaus (at about 500 ppm). Second, global climate change will change which areas of the planet have the best climate for crops, but it won't change which areas ha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow! I guess all the tomato hothouses here in the Oxnard, CA area are stupid for upping their CO2 levels to > 1000 PPM! Who knew that growth of plants plateaus at 500 PPM - someone better tell NOAA! [noaa.gov]
The 500 PPM value came from a story about wheat and rice, and did mention it is different for different plants (corn is even lower). The article appeared to be focusing more on the large cash crops.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming the change doesn't happen to rapidly as to cause an extinction
From TFA: "The broad scientific consensus is that coral reef ecosystems worldwide risk collapse by as early as 2050". This means that based on current research, it will happen too rapidly for nature to handle. That is why the coral reef in this story is potentially important, because it could show an example of coral which is resilient enough to weather this rapid change. But then again the research here is in very early stages, so it doesn't appear they know why this coral is more resistant. Or even if it
Re: (Score:1)
Ferret
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure who the alarmists are, but maybe look to the scientific literature instead. The IPCC report at the time suggested that we shouldn't expect 2 feet of sea level rise until 2100 (and certainly not by 2020!) , but may only get 1 foot by 2100. See figure 12 of the IPCC FAR WG1: https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreport... [www.ipcc.ch]
So maybe fuck the alarmists (whoever those folks are) but trust the science?
Seems great but... (Score:2)
unless they can start growing this coral everywhere as fast as the current coral is dying then there are still going to be a large die-offs in oceans. The proliferation of this coral is the kind of thing you would expect to happen naturally over thousands of years. We still need to clean up this planet.
Don't confuse bleaching with dying (Score:5, Interesting)
Just don't confuse coral "bleaching" with dying. It's normal for coral to "bleach" (expel their algae) every few years, and there can be dozens of different causes.
Around 40% of the time, after the bleaching event a different composition of algae takes the place of the expelled algae, about 50% of the time the same type of algae re-colonizes the polyps, and about 10% of it dies.
Re: (Score:2)
Just don't confuse coral "bleaching" with dying. It's normal for coral to "bleach" (expel their algae) every few years
But not entire reefs, all at the same time, over vast areas,
Are you one of those who thinks it's also "normal for the Earth to warm up, therefore AGW can't exist?
Re: (Score:2)
But not entire reefs, all at the same time, over vast areas,
How much is normal? How often would you say this happens?
Re: (Score:2)
How much is normal? How often would you say this happens?
Severe coral reef bleaching is now ‘five times more frequent’ [sciencemag.org] than 40 years ago, with climate change playing a significant role in the rise.
The longest-lasting recorded global bleaching event began in 2014 [mentalfloss.com] and continues to affect coral reefs worldwide. Few areas in the Southern Hemisphere escaped bleaching in the recently ended summer; surveys of the Great Barrier Reef suggest that more than 90 percent of it has been affected by bleaching.
Scientists first recorded a mass coral bleaching, one wh
Re: Don't confuse bleaching with dying (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The "anthropocene" does not exist [wattsupwiththat.com], it is not a valid, scientific name. Any "scholarly work" that refers to it is showing its politics right front-and-center.
Additionally, looking at the linked paper, we see they determined the temperature for each reef via looking at the MAXIMUM (not mean, not median, the maximum) temperature recorded for the 1 deg Lat x 1 deg Long box that is centered on the reef - whether or not that corresponded to the "peak" of bleaching.
Additionally, they did NOT include control ree
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the messenger, not the message. How "tolerant" of you! Here you go for the information you refuse to learn:
The global body tasked with naming geological eras, the International Commission on Stratigraphy, has rejected the proposed Anthropocene epoch
In other words - the anthropocene does not exist. Using that term is simply done to be political and biased.
And what about the criticism of the paper itself, including shoddy definitions of temperature, and lack of control reefs?
Severe bleaching is now 5x more frequent (Score:2)
The global body tasked with naming geological eras, the International Commission on Stratigraphy, has rejected the proposed Anthropocene epoch
And yet the term does have meaning in the scientific literature, though it may trigger readers of conspiracy blogs.
For example, Paul Jozef Crutzen (Nobel Prize-winning atmospheric chemist) describes it thusly in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: "The term Anthropocene suggests: (i) that the Earth is now moving out of its current geological epoch, called the Holocene and (ii) that human activity is largely responsible for this exit from the Holocene, that is, that humankind has become a gl
How "tolerant" of you! (Score:2)
How "tolerant" of you!
If you aspirations are to be tolerated then you may want to find better sources. ;) This is a "news for nerds" site, not a conspiracy blog after all. Maybe avoid Ken Hamm and Samuel Shenton as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The global body tasked with naming geological eras, the International Commission on Stratigraphy, has rejected the proposed Anthropocene epoch
And yet the term does have meaning in the scientific literature
Apparently, it does not. It is not a recognized term by the ICS, who are the arbiters of what geologic epochs actually are. If you decide to call a frog a drazzlif, it does not mean that drazzlif is a term with scientific meaning. Anthropocene doesn't exist.
And I am curious about why you continue to ignore the failures of the paper in terms of how they determine the temperature and their lack of control reefs. Does the science not interest you, just the labeling and fluff around it?
Nothing conspiratorial about conspiracy blog? (Score:2)
Nothing conspiratorial about that site. That's the issue - just because they report actual, published science
Cite the science if you have any.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not a recognized term by the ICS, who are the arbiters of what geologic epochs actually are.
If a term isn't a recognized epoch then it has no meaning? Google scholar returns about 59,200 papers.
Here's more research on the accelerating trend towards bleaching. This time in Nature:
Coral reefs across the world’s oceans are in the midst of the longest bleaching event on record (from 2014 to at least 2016). As many of the world’s reefs are remote, there is limited information on how past thermal conditions have influenced reef composition and current stress responses. Using satellite t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is not a recognized term by the ICS, who are the arbiters of what geologic epochs actually are.
If a term isn't a recognized epoch then it has no meaning? Google scholar returns about 59,200 papers.
No, it has meaning, as I stated in my first post several back - it's a politically charged, made-up term designed to show a particular political bent/belief right out of the gate.
Got anything better than a conspiracy blog showing otherwise?
You're hopeless. I wonder when the chant of Nazi starts...
Re: (Score:2)
All terms are made up. That's how language works. This one seems to trigger you, but the meaning is clear: "The term Anthropocene suggests: (i) that the Earth is now moving out of its current geological epoch, called the Holocene and (ii) that human activity is largely responsible for this exit from the Holocene, that is, that humankind has become a global geological force in its own right. "
Here's another report showing the acceleration in bleaching: Monitoring Data and Evidence for Increased Coral Bleac [springer.com]
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's normal for Earth to be a frozen iceball. You better root for global warming, human caused or otherwise, cause the next minor ice age like in the 17th century is going to kill billions.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you one of those who thinks it's also "normal for the Earth to warm up, therefore AGW can't exist?
Well, it IS normal for the Earth to warm up - it's how we exit those dominant time periods called ice ages...
Re: (Score:2)
Are you one of those who thinks it's also "normal for the Earth to warm up, therefore AGW can't exist?
AGW exists, it's just hyped beyond what the evidence warrants.
Re: (Score:2)
AGW exists, it's just hyped beyond what the evidence warrants.
Well, you have moved beyond the "AGW doesn't exist. It's just an academic/ China conspiracy" lunacy.
I guess that is progress.
Re: Don't confuse bleaching with dying (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No, no, no. Just no. This myth peddled by the fossil fuel industries et. al. needs to die. IAAMB (I am a marine biologist) and no, it's definitely not normal.
Yes, they can survive it, but it's not normal. I guess you could argue it's the new normal as a result of increased ocean temperatures, but it's definitely not normal normal.
Also, those stats are way off, otherwise we wouldn't have over 100,000 sq km the Great Barrier Reef dead dead, as in, really dead, as in, the zooxanthellae is gone, and the coral h
What a Remarkable World We Have! (Score:2)
Ferret
Re: (Score:2)
And, strangely enough, man needs the oceans to be healthy.
Re: (Score:2)
And, strangely enough, man needs the oceans to be healthy.
Man needs to eat.
Re: (Score:2)
And breathe.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if you apply that logic anywhere else in life.
Are you a chain smoker because some people smoke their whole lives and never get cancer?
Do you forgo your seat-belt because not everyone died in car crashes before they were standardized?
People have survived hitting the ground from free-fall at terminal velocity, are you gonna jump out of a plane without a parachute?
biggest reef... (Score:5, Interesting)
Australia has a pretty big reef and what have the australian gov done with 444million dollars ?
awarded the largest ever non-profit grant to an organisation with six staff members "without due diligence, without a proper tender process, without them even requesting it"
Great Barrier Reef Foundation then took big minning exec's a on snorkelling tour
contact Mr Frydenberg here :
https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=FKL
Re: (Score:3)
That's politics, not science.
Re: (Score:1)
Heaven forbid they actually try to help some executives appreciate the reef by having them experiencing it first hand.
Re: Nitrogen is your friend (Score:2)
You should try huffing that fulltime, and get rid of all those poisonous O2 molecules.
It's almost like.... (Score:4, Insightful)
...coral is one of the oldest, most durably-tolerant species on the planet, and not (generally) this delicate snowflake of a clade that will suddenly die because temps ticked up a degree or two?
Coral is HUNDREDS of milions of years old.
It has tolerated MUCH warmer and MUCH cooler conditions.
It has tolerated MUCH *faster swings* in temperature.
It will be here long after the last Green Ecomarxist's voice insisting that "coral is all dying!!" has faded away.
Not an ideal solution (Score:2)
Better condition Did Well (Score:2)
They were resistant, not immune. Still had problems.
RTF scientific paper.