Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth

Great Barrier Reef Has Most Coral In Decades (washingtonpost.com) 124

Posted by BeauHD from the strong-and-resilient dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Great Barrier Reef Has Most Coral In Decades More

Great Barrier Reef Has Most Coral In Decades

Comments Filter:

  • What? No doom? (Score:5, Funny)

    by ickleberry ( 864871 ) <web@pineapple.vg> on Saturday August 06, 2022 @08:15AM (#62766866) Homepage
    This is not supposed to happen. Get rid of this article immediately! 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!

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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)

        by iAmWaySmarterThanYou ( 10095012 )

        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?

        • 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)

          by narcc ( 412956 )

          The only people saying that are right-wing trolls, such as yourself.

        • 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

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Don't let reality disrupt our dire warnings! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by wirehead_rick ( 308391 ) on Saturday August 06, 2022 @08:41AM (#62766892)

    "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)

      by splutty ( 43475 )

      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)

        by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Saturday August 06, 2022 @10:18AM (#62767056) Homepage Journal

        > 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)

          by narcc ( 412956 )

          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]

          • How about we not listen to people who are panicking, emotional, or propagandists, and instead look at data?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by narcc ( 412956 )

              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.

              • We did. It turns out that the data does not support your idiotic beliefs.

                Which belief are you talking about, exactly?

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by sfcat ( 872532 )
                Ok, but what about your non-scientific beliefs in being able to de-carbonize the grid with solar and wind. That knife cuts both ways. You don't get to say "believe the science" about coral and then ignore it about solar and nuclear power. Until environmentalists listen to all the science and not just the science they like, then you don't get to act angry about people not believing a specific piece of research. And quit name dropping "science" if you are going to cherry pick which parts you believe in an

    • Re:Don't let reality disrupt our dire warnings! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Saturday August 06, 2022 @09:15AM (#62766944)

      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".

      • "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

        • 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

          • 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

            • 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

              • 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.

    • "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

    • "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)

        by sfcat ( 872532 )

        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

  • Where climate change runs off the rails (Score:3)

    by JoeyRox ( 2711699 ) on Saturday August 06, 2022 @08:46AM (#62766896)
    I'm fully on-board with climate change science and many of its predictions. Where it loses me though are the micro-prognostications, where it claims to predict precise changes to complex biological ecosystems. There are simply too many variables to make these types of calls.
    • And how is this "micro-prognostication"? They have data over the last 40 years that the large parts of the corral reed have died. This rebound does not mean that all the depletion over the last 40 years is somehow magically undone.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by countach ( 534280 )

        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)

          by splutty ( 43475 ) on Saturday August 06, 2022 @09:51AM (#62767014)

          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)

          by UnknowingFool ( 672806 )

          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)

          by dfghjk ( 711126 )

          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.

  • Were there any climatologists predicting an increase in coral mass?

    • None that would be able to get published.

    • Was there any funding to make that prediction? Nope, so the answer is nope. However plenty of funding to catastrophise.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by narcc ( 412956 )

        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)

          by sfcat ( 872532 )

          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)

      by skam240 ( 789197 ) on Saturday August 06, 2022 @10:43AM (#62767122)

      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...

      • 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]

        • The title of the paper is "Modeling the effects of climate change and acidification on global coral reefs". The paper is about a model built upon and tested on data from other researchers. And your point is what? Scientists should never try to model things?
          • No, I was just responding to skam (ironic name) who was arguing that climatologists don't get involved with marine biology.
            • He is correct. Climatologists had little to do with marine biologists measuring the decline of the reef over decades. Hence they were not predicting anything.
              • Which lends back to my original question as to whether the increase was predicted by existing models.
                • Again what part of the decline has been measured by marine scientists for decades is not clear? You seem fixated on talking about things that are not relevant to the story.
                  • I'm focused purely on the science aspect, simply wondering how well the various projections/models/forecasts are matching up with observations.
                    • Have you researched all the models and predictions instead of focusing on a single model that is not related to the actual findings presented? Seems like that is something you should do rather than ask about it on a website. From my perspective this seems to be a red herring fallacy.

                    • 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.

                    • So you have not researched the topic thoroughly but insist that I do so for you while raising that it might be an issue. How is that not a red herring to the actual data that has been presented?
                    • My question was tailored to those more versed on the topic. If you don't have information to contribute then I'll simply leave you to your devices.

                      Have a nice day :-)

                    • 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.

                    • Appeal to motive fallacy

  • A bit like Antarctica is gaining ice (Score:3)

    by Viol8 ( 599362 ) on Saturday August 06, 2022 @09:22AM (#62766958) Homepage

    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 .....

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by narcc ( 412956 )

      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?

  • Much ado about nothing. The reef has recovered and now history will show that the coral population is just very volatile from season to season.

    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?

    • 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.

      • 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.

        • And how is that relevant to the fact that corral in a specific has been measured to be in decline for the last 40 years? That's like saying the American Southwest cannot be in drought now because water has existed on Earth for billions of years.
          • I guess it depends on if you think there is something innately special about that particular 40 years out of the last 500,000,000.
            • I think that you bring up eons of time is one way of avoiding discussing real issues. By your logic, animals have been killing animals since the beginning of time. We should allow humans to murder each other. People should just live freely among predators like lions. No one should be making anti-venom against insects or snakes. There's nothing inanely special about the existence of humans for the last million years compare to the billions of years of life on Earth.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by narcc ( 412956 )

      No, it hasn't. Read the article.

  • 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)

    by groobly ( 6155920 ) on Saturday August 06, 2022 @12:03PM (#62767266)

    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.

  • Not only did he fund most "coral bleaching" research, he did it because multiple small nations were suing him for parking his megayacht over their reefs, letting the 2-3 mile long steel chain anchor drag around in a circle for a few weeks destroying the reef, picking up and moving to a fresh patch, then blaming "man made climate change," funny in that it wasn't that far off, he made it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dfghjk ( 711126 )

      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.

      • All anchors cause damage, nowhere near as severe as a 3-mile long steel chain anchor circling around in the wind and tearing up everything in it's path. Small boats don't do nearly as much damage as megayachts, and paul allen doesn't need to be demonized, he was a demon.
  • Even when things are better than expected so-called scientists are worried and complain a lot. 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.

    • 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The great question... which I have not been able to answer... is, `What does woman want?'" -- Sigmund Freud

Close