Great Barrier Reef Has Most Coral In Decades (washingtonpost.com) 124
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Washington Post: Marine scientists have found that parts of Australia's Great Barrier Reef have recorded their highest levels of coral cover since monitoring began nearly four decades ago, although they warn the reef's recovery could be swiftly undone by global warming. The Australian Institute of Marine Science, a government agency, began monitoring Earth's largest reef system 36 years ago. Its latest report indicates that the northern and central parts of the reef are on the mend after an "extensive bout" of disturbances over the past decade, said Mike Emslie, a senior research scientist at the institute. The results of the institute's annual survey show that the reef "is still vibrant and still resilient, and it can bounce back from disturbances if it gets the chance," Emslie said in an interview Thursday.
News of the recovery in the reef's northern and central parts was partly offset by the report's finding that there was a loss of coral cover in the southern region. There, the reef fell prey to an outbreak of crown-of-thorns starfish, which feed exclusively on live coral, the scientists said. About half of the reefs were surveyed before the most recent coral bleaching event in February and March. Emslie said researchers won't know the full extent of the coral cover lost from that event until next year. The sheer size of the Great Barrier Reef system -- it spans some 1,700 miles and is so large it can easily be spotted from space -- means the survey is staggered over seven or eight months of the year.
Among the 87 reefs surveyed for the latest report, average hard coral cover in the north increased to 36 percent, up from 27 percent in 2021, and to 33 percent in the central Great Barrier Reef from 26 percent last year. Average coral cover in the southern region decreased from 38 percent in 2021 to 34 percent this year. Much of the recent reef recovery was driven by the fast-growing Acropora species -- whose delicate branching and table corals have adorned countless postcards for tourists. Marine scientists worry that these corals are some of the most vulnerable to the impacts of global warming, including marine heat waves, coral bleaching and damaging waves, such as those generated during tropical cyclones.
News of the recovery in the reef's northern and central parts was partly offset by the report's finding that there was a loss of coral cover in the southern region. There, the reef fell prey to an outbreak of crown-of-thorns starfish, which feed exclusively on live coral, the scientists said. About half of the reefs were surveyed before the most recent coral bleaching event in February and March. Emslie said researchers won't know the full extent of the coral cover lost from that event until next year. The sheer size of the Great Barrier Reef system -- it spans some 1,700 miles and is so large it can easily be spotted from space -- means the survey is staggered over seven or eight months of the year.
Among the 87 reefs surveyed for the latest report, average hard coral cover in the north increased to 36 percent, up from 27 percent in 2021, and to 33 percent in the central Great Barrier Reef from 26 percent last year. Average coral cover in the southern region decreased from 38 percent in 2021 to 34 percent this year. Much of the recent reef recovery was driven by the fast-growing Acropora species -- whose delicate branching and table corals have adorned countless postcards for tourists. Marine scientists worry that these corals are some of the most vulnerable to the impacts of global warming, including marine heat waves, coral bleaching and damaging waves, such as those generated during tropical cyclones.
What? No doom? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
You really haven't grasped this article have you?
You've taken one bit of good news, currently increased coral cover in the North, and extrapolated it to:
> There is supposed to be a steady stream of articles telling us that things are getting progressively worse due to global warming. None of these positive contradictory outliers please!
But that's not remotely what the article said. The article said coral cover has increased, but it's largely made up of acropora which is one of the more prone to coral ble
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Yeah exactly. All the polar bears are dead, too, even though their population is at its highest since anyone started counting. But, they're all dead, starving from AGW.
And millions of turtles have plastic straw stuck in their noses. AGW induced straw-nose syndrome.
You fucking murderous right wingers killed all the polar bears for your fur coats!
How dare you?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah exactly. All the polar bears are dead, too, even though their population is at its highest since anyone started counting
According to whom? I would check your sources. I would guess sites that state that equate actual sitings from decades ago with estimations of today.
Re: (Score:1)
The only people saying that are right-wing trolls, such as yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah exactly. All the polar bears are dead, too, even though their population is at its highest since anyone started counting. But, they're all dead, starving from AGW.
You offer no evidence to support this claim, so I will present evidence [arcticwwf.org] showing a mixed bag. You will note that like bison, and unlike the carrier pigeon, polar bears were near extinction until controls were put in place. Also, like the bison, the polar bear population cannot be near what it was hundreds of years ago simply due to the mass
Re: (Score:1)
The polar bears are all dead! 30% reduction from all dead is still all dead, you blistering fool!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ignore the actual evidence, trust their model!
Re: (Score:3)
So... they predicted that coral coverage would decrease, and they are now proven wrong. They now predict that this is just temporary, and we're supposed to believe them this time?
They didn't just predict. They have 40 years of data that the reef was in decline.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't just predict. They have 40 years of data that the reef was in decline.
And it was. In just 2 years it grew back 1/3 of what it had lost. This is the part that wasn't predicted, just how fast it came back. Bad news for scuba divers (and any eco-style tourism businesses). Good news for everyone else. This is ultimately good news as it predicts that if we just fix CO2 emissions, then most of the loses will be recovered quickly. Too bad building nuclear reactors is still politically difficult. Perhaps the lessons here is that letting non-scientific folks lead environmental
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"This is the part that wasn't predicted..."
No, it's the part that wasn't publicized. Scientists know how coral reefs recover and what rates are possible.
"In just 2 years it grew back 1/3 of what it had lost."
It didn't grow back any of what was lost, what is lost is lost. It grew back something else; just because you are ignorant of the difference does not make what you say true.
"... if we just fix CO2 emissions, then most of the loses will be recovered quickly."
Or most of the "loses" won't be recovered at
Re: (Score:2)
"Ignore the actual evidence, trust their model!"
Why are you assuming you are getting "actual evidence"? If you don't believe them, then don't believe them.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes.
Not a single "prediction" made by environmentalists has ever come true. There is still ice at the poles. No one is under water. There is no global famine. These people will tell you this is because they were listened to and steps were taken to slow the damage, just lie people are claiming about this reef. But unfalsifiable claims are the hallmark of charlatans so you can be confident these people are lying and don't really have any science behind their projections, they just want to manipulate us.
Not to mention a recent survey of NOAA weather stations revealed that a great many are installed improperly and are adversely affected by heat sources like parking lots.
https://www.breitbart.com/poli... [breitbart.com]
Im not saying global warming ISNT happening, but it is rather suspect that the data gathered is from sources that are hotter than they would be normally.
Re:What? No doom? (Score:5, Informative)
The Heartland Institute also was saying smoking and lung cancer were not closely related. They will advocate for whomever is writing them checks, IE Phillip Morris and the coal industry Most reputable research organizations also don't go on their own advertising campaigns for issues, kinda poisons the well a bit.
I am not saying their study doesn't deserve a look but it can hardly be considered unbiased or accurate off reputation. The same way I assume one would look at a study from The Sierra Club or another environmentalist group. They have an agenda.
There is also the issue that the NOAA is not the only weather information service on the planet, I haven't seen anything to say that their readings are wildly out of proportion with the rest all over the globe.
Re: (Score:3)
I am saying think tanks with corporate funding by agenda and profit driven companies should carry some increased scrutiny. I am not going to say "this is wrong based on that, but that article is drawing very strong conclusions from the findings of a place that has every agenda and a financial incentiv to come to to those conclusions.
To that case, when I looked into it I have not seen a strong walkback of the smoking conclusions, and hell they were making these claims pretty recently when the data about smo
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not saying Breibart is dishonest but I suspect that posting and advancing conspiracy theories and false stories undermines their credibility.
They are just reporting on NOAAs findings. As to those findings, never attribute malice when incompetence is more likely.
I honestly think the placement is more likely ineptitude, not some grand scheme.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You are seriously quoting a right-wing conspiracy website that is itself quoting a right-wing think tank known for science denial and lobbying for tobacco and oil industry giants.
Get the fuck out of here.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry about this strong worded response. Society is too polarized, and I have been a contributor to this by using confrontational, antagonizing rhetoric. I know this seems to be standard over the Internet, but I'm trying to do better.
Let me rephrase my response:
Not sure if you're ware, but Breitbart is known to be a right-wing conspiracy website, and in their article they are quoting a right-wing think tank known for science denial and lobbying for tobacco and oil industry giants. Even if you're conservativ
Re: (Score:3)
> https://www.breitbart.com/poli [breitbart.com]... [breitbart.com]
I'll take "How to remove any semblance of credibility from your post in 50 characters or less", thanks, Alex.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And it's interesting you brought up the notion of not eating fat; the medical advice on eating fat was based on bad science and has been harmful for decades, so your doctor was wrong. I grew up with margarine in my parent's house, instead of butter, because of this advice; butter would have been infinitely better for us. Maybe you should look for a new doctor?
Apparently you claim me of straw manning when misrepresenting what I said. My doctor said I should eat LESS fatty foods and get more exercise. This is not a ground breaking suggestion. But apparently you know way more than my doctor who has my medical history and my lab results. You seem very insistent that I listen to people with zero expertise like you for advice.
How do you know about Trump's penis?
Haven't you heard from many women how impotent Trump is. It is on the Internet so it must be true.
Re: (Score:2)
Eating less fatty food is bad advice; there are many different kinds [heartfoundation.org.au] of fat:
Based on what? Your say so? Again you seem insistent that I disregard what my doctor who has my medical history and my lab results said. Also I did not say if my doctor detailed which kinds of fats I should avoid. But your first advice is that I find a new doctor. Apparently your ignorance of my health situation is better than my doctor's advice.
Re: (Score:2)
And how is any of that relevant? Without ANY knowledge of what my doctor has said or what my doctor's specialty, you said I should find another doctor. Again, you value your ignorance over someone else's expertise.
'Reduce fats' is poor advice for cardiovascular health for humans; you need to reduce some fats while increasing others.
Again were you there when my doctor told me all the fats I should reduce? No. Then again why do you think you know more than my doctor? Because you read something on the Internet? This has been your modus operandi this entire thread. You really do not know, but you are sure you are right.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't let reality disrupt our dire warnings! (Score:3, Insightful)
"they warn the reef's recovery could be swiftly undone by global warming"
Yeah because nothing sucks worse than being wrong about the dire predictions of the loss of coral at the Great Barrier Reef for the last 30 years.
Our hubris in thinking we understand the environment and that we can control it knows no bounds.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You should probably read the actual articles before you go making the assumptions you're obviously making.
It's a bit more complex than your populist thinking implies.
Re:Don't let reality disrupt our dire warnings! (Score:4, Informative)
> It's a bit more complex than your populist thinking implies.
No argument but the Globalist thinking was that the reefs of concern would be 90% gone by 2022.
The current troubles are mostly attributed to the spiny starfish rebound.
Given A or B, the populists were far more correct.
https://ocean.si.edu/ecosystem... [si.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Great! Let's not listen to those sissy environmentalists! I'm off to dump electronics waste directly into the reservoir.
What could possibly go wrong? [worldatlas.com]
Re: (Score:2)
How about we not listen to people who are panicking, emotional, or propagandists, and instead look at data?
Re: (Score:2)
We did. It turns out that the data does not support your idiotic beliefs. That hasn't stopped you from pretending that it does, which is getting really old.
Re: (Score:2)
We did. It turns out that the data does not support your idiotic beliefs.
Which belief are you talking about, exactly?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I don't keep up with all the insane right-wing conspiracies.
Re:Don't let reality disrupt our dire warnings! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah because nothing sucks worse than being wrong about the dire predictions of the loss of coral at the Great Barrier Reef for the last 30 years.
Did you even read the summary:
Marine scientists have found that parts of Australia's Great Barrier Reef have recorded their highest levels of coral cover since monitoring began nearly four decades ago.
They have recorded and documented the depletion of corral over the last 40 years. It was not so much "a dire prediction" but tangible and measurable data. In some parts it appears one species has rebounded slightly. Note the words "some" and "one".
Re: (Score:2)
"In some parts it appears one species has rebounded slightly. Note the words "some" and "one".
That's funny because the key point of the article is that it's rebounded to the GREATEST EXTENT OF THE 4 DECADE SPAN OF MEASUREMENT.
No real hedging there, until you inevitably needed to try to cherry pick the worst possible way to spin the data. Why would you do that? Shouldn't we be celebrating?
The point is that ecomarxists have been bemoaning the GBR as the poster child of the terrible consequences of climate c
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny because the key point of the article is that it's rebounded to the GREATEST EXTENT OF THE 4 DECADE SPAN OF MEASUREMENT.
And why is that funny? You do know that your GREATEST EXTENT claim does not mean the reef is anywhere close to full recovery right? You are missing the big picture.
No real hedging there, until you inevitably needed to try to cherry pick the worst possible way to spin the data. Why would you do that? Shouldn't we be celebrating?
Ummm. Spinning the data is exactly what you are doing. Some recovery of one species is EXACTLY what the data says. You have extrapolated it to REEF IS FULLY RECOVERED.
The point is that ecomarxists have been bemoaning the GBR as the poster child of the terrible consequences of climate change since James Hansen first got a woody about it.
No the point is yet again you dismiss actual tangible data that the reef has been dying for 40 years and at the same time twisting the data that some recovery is happening. The data
Re: (Score:2)
First, maybe don't put words in my mouth and things might be clearer to understand.
A reef isn't like a dog, a single eukaryote organism. A reef is a vast, heterogenous collection of current and past life forms, plus the attendant ecosystem. It's absolutely not 'a single species' - that would be a flat out lie on your part.
Nor did anyone say the reef is 'fully recovered'. Those are your words alone, and a strawman. However, is it recovering? Absolutely, per the article: "...the northern and central part
Re: (Score:2)
A reef isn't like a dog, a single eukaryote organism. A reef is a vast, heterogenous collection of current and past life forms, plus the attendant ecosystem. It's absolutely not 'a single species' - that would be a flat out lie on your part.
When did I say the reef was ONE SPECIES? Please cite that because I said "In some parts, one species has rebounded" because the summary says: "average hard coral cover in the north increased to 36 percent, up from 27 percent in 2021, and to 33 percent in the central Great Barrier Reef from 26 percent last year. Average coral cover in the southern region decreased from 38 percent in 2021 to 34 percent this year. Much of the recent reef recovery was driven by the fast-growing Acropora species Much of the re
Re: (Score:2)
The sum of the data is that it's at the greatest extent in 36 years of actual monitoring. Period, full stop.
You're the one trying to parse this down and only highlight negative bits.
Re: (Score:2)
"they warn the reef's recovery could be swiftly undone by global warming"
Yeah because nothing sucks worse than being wrong about the dire predictions of the loss of coral at the Great Barrier Reef for the last 30 years.
You're under the strange assumption that people worried about climate change actually want the worst case to be true.
Here's the reality of the scenario you're trying to miscast.
People concerned about a scenario X believe society is drastically under reacting to the threat of X. Therefore, bad news is sometimes good news because there mere fact of the bad things reaching the news might cause people to do something about it. And good news can be bad news if it lulls the public into a false sense of security.
C
Maybe you're just irresponsible with data (Score:1)
"they warn the reef's recovery could be swiftly undone by global warming"
Yeah because nothing sucks worse than being wrong about the dire predictions of the loss of coral at the Great Barrier Reef for the last 30 years.
Our hubris in thinking we understand the environment and that we can control it knows no bounds.
I read this and think "well, if we get our act together, this ecosystem can recover." The problem is many reading are irresponsible and saying "well, it's coming back, so I don't need to think about global warming, it's a Chinese Hoax, just like DJT said."
To me, a great corollary is smoking. We all know you shouldn't smoke. It's rather obvious smoking is unhealthy. However, if you stop smoking, your lungs recover surprisingly quickly. Reading that, most would think "OK, I should stop smoking and I'll
Re: (Score:2)
How is your life worse if more of your neighbors buy EVs and people plant more trees in empty fields?
The EV takes loads of a rare resource (Lithium) to make and thus drives up the cost of goods which using Li-ion batteries. The planting trees in empty fields: 1) buying land to do this drives up the cost of housing as it takes land off the market and 2) trees plant themselves anywhere they could grow already. But those are small impacts. How about this for a bigger impact, the fixes that environmentalists push a) don't often work, especially for power production and b) often mostly impact the poor but ra
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
As a matter of policy they are censoring research and papers that show anything other than global warming caused through human-induced climate change, so of course that's all you'll ever see get assessed and published by them.
And you are welcome to present evidence of this as I was told by a cousin of your roommate's boyfriend that you murder dodo birds for fun. It is on the Internet so it must be true, right?
Where climate change runs off the rails (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually it does mean that depletion over the last 40 years is undone. That is exactly what it means. Depletion was caused mostly by the crown of thorns starfish. The theory was that something mankind had done, whether climate change or polution or whatever had led to the rise of the starfish. But contrarians said no, the reef goes through these starfish cycles and it will come back. They were pooh poohed. Turns out they were right. Nobody cares about the crown of thorns starfish anymore. And whatever clima
Re:Where climate change runs off the rails (Score:5, Informative)
Citation needed.
Because one specific species of coral making a comeback is not "undoing the last 40 years" where a large amount of different species got calcified or destroyed.
Here's mine: https://www.aims.gov.au/docs/r... [aims.gov.au]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually it does mean that depletion over the last 40 years is undone. That is exactly what it means
No it does not. Let me explain it like this. I visited a national park recently that had a wildfire not too long ago. Trees have come back to some parts but not others. Your argument is because some new trees have grown that means the fire never happened. The reef has been dying based on 40 years of measurable data. Some regrowth does not mean overall that it has not been dying anymore that trees growing back in an area affected by wildfire does not mean the fire never occurred.
Re: (Score:2)
A post of such overwhelming ignorance you might think it was authored by SuperKendall. I loved the "nobody cares about the crown of thorns starfish anymore" comment, it's hard to reach a more idiotic conclusion than that. I wonder if you even know what coral reefs are.
Re: Where climate change runs off the rails (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I think the guy you responded tp was being sarcastic, but Poe's Law.
Re: (Score:1)
Predicted or serendipitous? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: Predicted or serendipitous? (Score:2)
None that would be able to get published.
Re: (Score:2)
Was there any funding to make that prediction? Nope, so the answer is nope. However plenty of funding to catastrophise.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any evidence to support your claim that only specific research outcomes are funded, or is this just your normal right-wing conspiracy bullshit?
Re: (Score:3)
I believe in AGW, but I have also been part of an academic group (20 years ago) that had to raise funds for research. Getting funding is hard and getting harder. Perhaps 20 years ago that comment would have been out of line but that was then. Today, I would find the counter argument hard to believe. If you aren't researching something that some rich person or institution wants to fund, it is really, really hard to find funding. That's why it is so easy to inject politics into academic scholarship. It
Re:Predicted or serendipitous? (Score:4, Interesting)
No but they also never predicted coral would be depleted either since climatologists study the climate and aren't frick'n marine biologists.
Your understanding of the world is troubling...
Re: (Score:2)
climatologists study the climate and aren't frick'n marine biologists.
Climatologists appear to write papers on just about any field that is affected by climate. https://www.researchgate.net/p... [researchgate.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you researched all the models and predictions?
I have not seen much in the way of high-quality papers regarding long-term forecasts/models relating to coral reefs. Do you know any good articles, or at least some good journals to peruse for said studies?
'Red herring' clearly doesn't fit here because I'm not making any claims, I'm interested in the science.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have a nice day :-)
Re: (Score:2)
And my advice is a website designed for discussion is a poor place for research. To me it seems you were not actually looking for answers as much as trying to suggest impropriety.
Re: (Score:2)
A bit like Antarctica is gaining ice (Score:3)
At first glance it looks great , until you realise its due to higher temps allowing snow to fall and those higher temps are melting the periphery.
With this coral one species is doing ok for now. Fingers crossed it'll continue but .....
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
A single, fragile, species coral, known to go through boom and bust cycles, rebounding for one year doesn't undo 40 years of decline across countless species.
It rained in the southwest, does that mean the drought is a hoax? What's wrong with you?
Sooo. (Score:2)
Sort of like if you complained when winter starts that we are about to freeze to death because you don't understand that summer always comes back around.
How long before they start worrying that the coral population won't stop increasing?
Re: (Score:2)
The reef has recovered and now history will show that the coral population is just very volatile from season to season.
Except that is not what it said. Some areas of the reef have experienced some regrowth != reef has recovered completely.
Coral will still be here long after we are gone. (Score:2)
The reef has recovered and now history will show that the coral population is just very volatile from season to season.
Except that is not what it said. Some areas of the reef have experienced some regrowth != reef has recovered completely.
Coral has been around for at least half a billion years. They have seen huge climatic changes in that time, including ones that were extinction level events for other forms of life. I'm pretty sure they will manage ok.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it hasn't. Read the article.
Our "news" is straight up propaganda (Score:2)
https://twitter.com/Reuters/st... [twitter.com]
It's not even persuasive propaganda... it's like a caricature of propaganda that expects to be taken seriously and wonders why everyone treats it like a joke.
https://twitter.com/DrEliDavid... [twitter.com]
The only reason (Score:3)
The only reason the GBR has recovered is thanks to Joe Biden's climate policies. Oh, and also thanks to those who prayed for it to recover.
Re: (Score:2)
RIP Paul Allen (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Jacques Cousteau used to dynamite reefs to allow passage of his research vessel. His destruction of reefs was intentional and malicious, but he had a National Geographic contract, right?
Meanwhile, all boats do damage when they anchor (absent moorings to prevent it) and no one blames this damage on "man made climate change". Nice try demonizing Paul Allen, though. You think anyone believes Paul Allen "made" climate change? I don't think even you believe that, you're just more than happy to say it.
Re: (Score:2)
"Scientists" always worry and complain (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Even when things are better than expected so-called scientists are worried and complain a lot.
Maybe in your world accurately reporting on things is called worrying and complaining. In my world report, that is the core of science.
Maybe they should take some Valium and spend more time actually being scientists, like discovering new cures for diseases, exploring outer space or something else more useful to society.
So you want marine scientists to work in fields outside their disciplines like medicine and space because you do not find their data "useful to society". And what do you do? If you do neither of those things, then by your logic, you are not useful to society either.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm pretty sure we all benefit significantly from "environmental remediation". I don't think you understand how bad things used to be, and how much worse they could be.