The Great Barrier Reef Has Lost Half Its Corals (nytimes.com) 57
The Great Barrier Reef, one of the earth's most precious habitats, lost half of its coral populations in the last quarter-century, a decline that researchers in Australia said would continue unless drastic action is taken to mitigate the effects of climate change. From a report: Researchers studied coral colonies along the length of the reef between 1995 and 2017 and found that almost every coral species had declined. Colony sizes were smaller; there were fewer "big mamas," or older large corals that produce baby corals; and there were fewer of those babies, which are vital to the reef's future ability to breed. "Our results show the ability of the Great Barrier Reef to recover -- its resilience -- is compromised compared to the past, because there are fewer babies, and fewer large breeding adults," Dr. Andy Dietzel, the lead author of the study, said in a statement.
The study was published on Wednesday in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society. Dr. Dietzel and other researchers from the ARC Center of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies in Queensland, Australia, measured changes in colony sizes as a way of understanding the capacity of corals to breed. Bleaching -- a process in which corals expel algae and turn white as water temperatures rise -- contributed to steep losses of coral colonies in the northern and central Great Barrier Reef in 2016 and 2017. The southern part of the reef was also exposed to record-setting temperatures in early 2020, according to the researchers, who cited climate change as one of the major drivers of disturbances to the reef. "There is no time to lose," the researchers said in their statement. "We must sharply decrease greenhouse gas emissions ASAP." "We used to think the Great Barrier Reef is protected by its sheer size -- but our results show that even the world's largest and relatively well-protected reef system is increasingly compromised and in decline," one of the researchers, Terence Hughes, said in a statement. The decline of "branching and table-shaped corals," which provide critical habitats for fish, was especially pronounced, the researchers said.
The study was published on Wednesday in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society. Dr. Dietzel and other researchers from the ARC Center of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies in Queensland, Australia, measured changes in colony sizes as a way of understanding the capacity of corals to breed. Bleaching -- a process in which corals expel algae and turn white as water temperatures rise -- contributed to steep losses of coral colonies in the northern and central Great Barrier Reef in 2016 and 2017. The southern part of the reef was also exposed to record-setting temperatures in early 2020, according to the researchers, who cited climate change as one of the major drivers of disturbances to the reef. "There is no time to lose," the researchers said in their statement. "We must sharply decrease greenhouse gas emissions ASAP." "We used to think the Great Barrier Reef is protected by its sheer size -- but our results show that even the world's largest and relatively well-protected reef system is increasingly compromised and in decline," one of the researchers, Terence Hughes, said in a statement. The decline of "branching and table-shaped corals," which provide critical habitats for fish, was especially pronounced, the researchers said.
The planet has two options (Score:3, Interesting)
We either run out of oil and stop polluting the seas with plastic and atmosphere with invisible CO2, or the planet wipes us out via climate change or a natural disaster big enough to cause an economic collapse we don't recover from. If we're lucky a scientific break through that is scalable and cheap in regard to energy production and carbon capture might save the day.
The wealthy have the resources to solve this problem, us commoners that have to spend our lives working to make ends meet, are given little choice about what we can buy and its impact on the environment.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: The planet has two options (Score:2)
Thing is, this mass-extinction is already going to be bigger than any before it.
Not much will be left.
I'd prefer it if *only* the humlons would be gone.
Re: (Score:2)
The End Permian Extinction was about 96 percent of species and 56 percent of genera wandering away from life. I'd be impressed if we managed to top that one.
I do think we'll get close to it, but there will be a lot of insects survive, and mass migrations towards the poles for some species as the earth warms.
Sadly, it probably won't take us out completely. We'll likely have the ultra-rich build themselves some nice habitats right around the poles, and they'll save a few scraps of the lower-rung folks to su
Re: (Score:2)
The robots won't care (Score:2)
It amazes me that people on Slash Dot think humanity has a future beyond at most 100 years.
We are building machines that will be smarter than us. After 60 years we have come a long way. Another 60 years should do it.
Why would the robots want us around?
In the meantime, let me assure you that the (dead) coral is still there. If it would only wash away then we would get some decent surf on the north Queensland beaches. Maybe wen the sea levels rise a few meters the waves will be able to go right over the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
We either run out of oil and stop polluting the seas with plastic and atmosphere with invisible CO2, or the planet wipes us out via climate change or a natural disaster big enough to cause an economic collapse we don't recover from.
Or, the climate changes, we adapt, the earth is slightly worse for us, and life goes on.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The planet has two options (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
We either run out of oil and stop polluting the seas with plastic and atmosphere with invisible CO2, or the planet wipes us out via climate change or a natural disaster big enough to cause an economic collapse we don't recover from.
Or, the climate changes, we adapt, the earth is slightly worse for us, and life goes on.
Yeah. More likely this. But I think we have a MUCH larger problem. We are devolving now. The future generations will be worse off, not better.
I'm talking about the destruction of truth, intelligence, and common sense. Without those included and prioritized in society, even a utopian environment is hell on earth.
And it's happening a lot faster than you assume.
Re: (Score:2)
My favorite option: (Score:3)
Stop making so many fucking humans!
Environmental Impact Assessments ... (Score:3, Interesting)
... are required for all kinds of mini projects.
Often, as a result of the assessment some form of compensation is required, e.g. reforestation
if trees have to be cut for a road or wind turbines.
Can we FINALLY start requiring EIAs for projects which modify the composition of the
entire planet's atmosphere???
Re: (Score:2)
What's the point? EIAs get read looked at in great deal and then "Project approved, man this is going to cause so many jobs!"
Re: (Score:1)
What's the point? EIAs get read looked at in great deal and then "Project approved, man this is going to cause so many jobs!"
You live in a part of the world where you could get away with 'let's kill all the corals because we *might* create some jobs doing so'?
I do think the world is moving away from this philosophy.
Where I live, most projects are required at least to compensate, often overcompensate, the damage they do. Yes, CO2 emissions are the sad and impactful exception.
Growth sucks (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The current supreme court nominee disagrees with you.
Re: (Score:2)
The current supreme court nominee disagrees with you.
Well, it certainly is a good thing we have a "Supreme" court to help curb those population numbers.
Because their opinion has been so effective, right?
Re: Growth sucks (Score:2)
Wolves be pro-sheep-eating.
Ebolaaids viruses be pro ebolaaids.
Humans be pro-human.
News at 11.
Re: (Score:1)
Humans be pro-human. News at 11.
Humans be pro-abortion, killing more of our own species each and every year than we have in previous World Wars.
News, to you. Obviously.
The reef will die (Score:2)
Until ppl realize that NEARLY ALL nations must drop their emissions, it will not change. far too many ppl are expecting the west to drop our emissions, which are generally headed in the right directions, while claiming that other nations, esp. develo
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense, it doesn't even matter what the USA does at this point. "All nations" don't have to do something, only China and later India too. Math is hard, it seems.
Re: (Score:2)
India needs to lower theirs, but, they are working on it. A number of their states have actually stopped building new coal plants, which is the right approach. In addition, India is BEGGING Tesla to sell there, as well as locate a plant there. Hopefully, they wil
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. the planet's biosphere doesn't care about "per capita" only absolute carbon emissions, which are largely under control of the government of China. India will soon surpass the USA. In the long run, the USA will become totally irrelevant for emissions as India becomes the other massive emitter in 30 years. Math is hard.
Re: (Score:1)
Wrong. the planet's biosphere doesn't care about "per capita" only absolute carbon emissions,
Correct. The best way to remve the carbon is to remove the people.
The best people to remove are Americans. [ourworldindata.org] Removing 300 million Americans will be twice as useful as removing 300million Europeans, or 300 million Chinese. You could remove all 1.4 billion Indians and it still wouldn't help as much as removing those 300 million Americans.
Trumps response to covid is a good start. But doesn't go far enough. We can only hope and pray he gets another 4 years to finish his work.
Re: (Score:3)
And BTW, Even India has lower emissions than does America, in both total and Per capita. They need to work on per $ GDP, but still remain better than nations like China.
Comparing India's CO2 per GDP [ourworldindata.org] You will notice it's improved 266% Well done.
You claim they need to do more? But your gold standard America has only improved 46% [ourworldindata.org] over the same timeframe.
You will either have to agree it's meaningless, or eat some humble pie and give a huge amount of credit to China for improving 900% [ourworldindata.org] over the same timeframe.
So which is it?
Before you answer, also note that America's data [ourworldindata.org] shows that all that ex
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest step will be solving the crown of thorns problem which is responsible for the majority of the decline.
Not saying the crown of thorns isn't a problem, but your statement is in direct opposition to the article.
I assume it's easy for the experts cited in the article to tell the difference between loss due to bleaching vs destruction due to crown of thorns. The researchers state that:
Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?
Re: (Score:2)
If this is due to the ocean warming around Austral (Score:2)
... why not transplant coral from warmer oceans? They would have a better chance of surviving there, now.
Re: (Score:2)
It's due to a lot of things. Temperature is just one of them.
Don't worry. We got a vaccine. (Score:2)
It has shown promise in getting rid of the horrible pathogen that kills those corals in a few more development cycles, and is called ... "Covid-19". ;)
There are a few things we could do (Score:2)
First, enact right to repair legislation and promote the longevity of devices (replaceable batteries). We all don't need new phones every two years or computers. We should stop our throw-away society.
Re: (Score:2)
eh, that has very very little to do with carbon emissions, gnats fart in hurricane.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the equivalent of the energy production of Japan is "gnats fart"
https://www.greenpeace.org/usa... [greenpeace.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I do, because greenpeace can't do math. that graph is of over last 13 years! So yeah, per year gnat's fart in hurricane to make smartphones.
And what percentage of that energy is from nuke or other zero emission? They don't know, you don't know.