Half of Great Barrier Reef coral lost in last 27 years

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Aljosa23 (26029 posts) -

Australia's Great Barrier Reef has lost more than half its coral cover in the past 27 years, a new study shows.Researchers analysed data on the condition of 217 individual reefs that make up the World Heritage Site.The results show that coral cover declined from 28.0% to 13.8% between 1985 and 2012.They attribute the decline to storms, a coral-feeding starfish and bleaching linked to climate change.The research is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal.

Glen De'ath from the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) and colleagues determined that tropical cyclones - 34 in total since 1985 - were responsible for 48% of the damage, while outbreaks of the coral-feeding crown-of-thorns starfish accounted for 42%.

Two severe coral bleaching events in 1998 and 2002 due to ocean warming also had "major detrimental impacts" on the central and northern parts of the reef, the study found, putting the impact at 10%.

"This loss of over half of initial cover is of great concern, signifying habitat loss for the tens of thousands of species associated with tropical coral reefs," the authors wrote in their study.

Co-author Hugh Sweatman said the findings, which were drawn from the world's largest ever reef monitoring project involving 2,258 separate surveys over 27 years, showed that coral could recover from such trauma.

"But recovery takes 10-20 years. At present, the intervals between the disturbances are generally too short for full recovery and that's causing the long-term losses," Sweatman said.

John Gunn, head of AIMS, said it was difficult to stop the storms and bleaching but researchers could focus their short-term efforts on the crown-of-thorns starfish, which feasts on coral polyps and can devastate reef cover.

The study said improving water quality was key to controlling starfish outbreaks, with increased agricultural run-off such as fertiliser along the reef coast causing algal blooms that starfish larvae feed on.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19800253

How sad. By the time I finally go diving there, the coral will be gone. :(

#2 Posted by jimkabrhel (15432 posts) -

Very sad.

Skeptics incoming.

#3 Posted by Aljosa23 (26029 posts) -

Very sad.

Skeptics incoming.

jimkabrhel

something something goes through cycles blahblahlbah

#4 Posted by Neoklondiak (352 posts) -

The earth's got a fevah and the only prescription is to end the industrial world.

#5 Posted by Neoklondiak (352 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

Very sad.

Skeptics incoming.

Aljosa23

something something goes through cycles blahblahlbah

Ice age denial? You're too cute Aljosa.

#6 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

It's being destroyed by an invasive species that eats coral. It's not due to 'climate change' . The other damage comes from storms.

#7 Posted by Aljosa23 (26029 posts) -

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

Very sad.

Skeptics incoming.

Neoklondiak

something something goes through cycles blahblahlbah

Ice age denial? You're too cute Aljosa.

Point me to where I said that please or don't post.

#8 Posted by Aljosa23 (26029 posts) -

It's being destroyed by an invasive species that eats coral. It's not due to 'climate change' . The other damage comes from storms.

KC_Hokie

"Two severe coral bleaching events in 1998 and 2002 due to ocean warming also had "major detrimental impacts" on the central and northern parts of the reef, the study found, putting the impact at 10%."

#9 Posted by Neoklondiak (352 posts) -

[QUOTE="Neoklondiak"]

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]something something goes through cycles blahblahlbah

Aljosa23

Ice age denial? You're too cute Aljosa.

Point me to where I said that please or don't post.

It seems to me that you were mocking the cycle people.

Anyway, do you realize how much carbon was emitted to produce the scene in your avatar? Why do you support killing the planet?

#10 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

It's being destroyed by an invasive species that eats coral. It's not due to 'climate change' . The other damage comes from storms.

Aljosa23

"Two severe coral bleaching events in 1998 and 2002 due to ocean warming also had "major detrimental impacts" on the central and northern parts of the reef, the study found, putting the impact at 10%."

OK but the other 90%...lol!
#11 Posted by SaintLeonidas (26733 posts) -

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

It's being destroyed by an invasive species that eats coral. It's not due to 'climate change' . The other damage comes from storms.

Aljosa23

"Two severe coral bleaching events in 1998 and 2002 due to ocean warming also had "major detrimental impacts" on the central and northern parts of the reef, the study found, putting the impact at 10%."

Don't be stupid. Facts don't mean a thing.
#12 Posted by wizzyman606 (1 posts) -
Who cares? Doesn't affect me in any way whatsoever. F*ck the fish for all I care.
#13 Posted by Jesus-Jew (47 posts) -

The earth's got a fevah and the only prescription is to end the industrial world.

Neoklondiak
Only the really delusional ecotards want that. Realistically, greenhouse gas emission simply need to be reduced to an acceptable level which requires neither wholesale deindustrialization nor a wholesale, cold turkey end to fossil fuels.
#14 Posted by Aljosa23 (26029 posts) -

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

It's being destroyed by an invasive species that eats coral. It's not due to 'climate change' . The other damage comes from storms.

KC_Hokie

"Two severe coral bleaching events in 1998 and 2002 due to ocean warming also had "major detrimental impacts" on the central and northern parts of the reef, the study found, putting the impact at 10%."

OK but the other 90%...lol!

Stop moving goal posts. lol

#15 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]"Two severe coral bleaching events in 1998 and 2002 due to ocean warming also had "major detrimental impacts" on the central and northern parts of the reef, the study found, putting the impact at 10%."

Aljosa23

OK but the other 90%...lol!

Stop moving goal posts. lol

How is pointing even the study admits 90% has nothing to do with climate moving goal posts?
#16 Posted by Neoklondiak (352 posts) -

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

It's being destroyed by an invasive species that eats coral. It's not due to 'climate change' . The other damage comes from storms.

SaintLeonidas

"Two severe coral bleaching events in 1998 and 2002 due to ocean warming also had "major detrimental impacts" on the central and northern parts of the reef, the study found, putting the impact at 10%."

Don't be stupid. Facts don't mean a thing.

Multiple things can cause coral bleaching FYI.

#17 Posted by Neoklondiak (352 posts) -

[QUOTE="Neoklondiak"]

The earth's got a fevah and the only prescription is to end the industrial world.

Jesus-Jew

Only the really delusional ecotards want that. Realistically, greenhouse gas emission simply need to be reduced to an acceptable level which requires neither wholesale deindustrialization nor a wholesale, cold turkey end to fossil fuels.

I'd prescribe nuclear reactors but the eco crowd seems to only want a solution that A. doesn't exist. or B. is absurdly costly and impractical.

#18 Posted by Aljosa23 (26029 posts) -

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="Neoklondiak"]

Ice age denial? You're too cute Aljosa.

Neoklondiak

Point me to where I said that please or don't post.

It seems to me that you were mocking the cycle people.

Anyway, do you realize how much carbon was emitted to produce the scene in your avatar? Why do you support killing the planet?

Sure am mocking them.

LOL at the second sentence. try harder :(

#19 Posted by Aljosa23 (26029 posts) -

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]OK but the other 90%...lol!KC_Hokie

Stop moving goal posts. lol

How is pointing even the study admits 90% has nothing to do with climate moving goal posts?

Are you an idiot? You clearly said it has nothing to do with climate change and then changed your stance when you were proved wrong.

of course you are a troll so idk why im arguing with you

#20 Posted by jimkabrhel (15432 posts) -

It's being destroyed by an invasive species that eats coral. It's not due to 'climate change' . The other damage comes from storms.

KC_Hokie

1. Source?

2. And such an invasive species couldn't also be affected my incresed CO2/bicarbonate in the water, or higher temperatures or both?

#21 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

It's being destroyed by an invasive species that eats coral. It's not due to 'climate change' . The other damage comes from storms.

jimkabrhel

1. Source?

2. And such an invasive species couldn't also be affected my incresed CO2/bicarbonate in the water, or higher temperatures or both?

It says 50% was due to storms, 40% due to starfish and only 10% due to bleaching. And then what percentage of that 10% is even due to humans?

Title of article couldn't have been more misleading.

#22 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]Stop moving goal posts. lol

Aljosa23

How is pointing even the study admits 90% has nothing to do with climate moving goal posts?

Are you an idiot? You clearly said it has nothing to do with climate change and then changed your stance when you were proved wrong.

of course you are a troll so idk why im arguing with you

The study says AT MOST 10% is due to climate change So 90%+ has nothing to do with it. Can you read?
#24 Posted by Aljosa23 (26029 posts) -

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]How is pointing even the study admits 90% has nothing to do with climate moving goal posts? KC_Hokie

Are you an idiot? You clearly said it has nothing to do with climate change and then changed your stance when you were proved wrong.

of course you are a troll so idk why im arguing with you

The study says AT MOST 10% is due to climate change So 90%+ has nothing to do with it. Can you read?

LOL at you still dodging the point. You really are retarded.

#25 Posted by Jesus-Jew (47 posts) -

[QUOTE="Jesus-Jew"][QUOTE="Neoklondiak"]

The earth's got a fevah and the only prescription is to end the industrial world.

Neoklondiak

Only the really delusional ecotards want that. Realistically, greenhouse gas emission simply need to be reduced to an acceptable level which requires neither wholesale deindustrialization nor a wholesale, cold turkey end to fossil fuels.

I'd prescribe nuclear reactors but the eco crowd seems to only want a solution that A. doesn't exist. or B. is absurdly costly and impractical.

Electricity is only a part of the equation (see: cars and efficient use of energy). Insofar as it is partially accountable for AGW, if coal was replaced by nuclear energy, it would be much, much, much, much cleaner. Realistically, since natural gas plants would emit only a fraction of greenhouse gas emission per kW * hr that coal does (but more than nuclear), that is probably what will happen. If environmentalists took themselves seriously OR nuclear was cheaper, I think it would happen, but it probably won't. Fossil fuels forever is the horoscope of the day.
#26 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]Are you an idiot? You clearly said it has nothing to do with climate change and then changed your stance when you were proved wrong.

of course you are a troll so idk why im arguing with you

Aljosa23

The study says AT MOST 10% is due to climate change So 90%+ has nothing to do with it. Can you read?

LOL at you still dodging the point. You really are retarded.

You should try reading the articles you post and not just commenting on the titles. Title is misleading as hell when you actually read the article.
#27 Posted by Aljosa23 (26029 posts) -

Youshould try reading the articles you post and not just commenting on the titles. Title is misleading as hell when you actually read the article. KC_Hokie
What makes you think I didn't? Title is only like that for shock value but you're right, I'll change it.

#28 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

[QUOTE="Neoklondiak"]

[QUOTE="Jesus-Jew"]Only the really delusional ecotards want that. Realistically, greenhouse gas emission simply need to be reduced to an acceptable level which requires neither wholesale deindustrialization nor a wholesale, cold turkey end to fossil fuels.Jesus-Jew

I'd prescribe nuclear reactors but the eco crowd seems to only want a solution that A. doesn't exist. or B. is absurdly costly and impractical.

Electricity is only a part of the equation (see: cars and efficient use of energy). Insofar as it is partially accountable for AGW, if coal was replaced by nuclear energy, it would be much, much, much, much cleaner. Realistically, since natural gas plants would emit only a fraction of greenhouse gas emission per kW * hr that coal does (but more than nuclear), that is probably what will happen. If environmentalists took themselves seriously OR nuclear was cheaper, I think it would happen, but it probably won't. Fossil fuels forever is the horoscope of the day.

Environmentalists are strange people. One group loves nuclear power while another blocks it. One group loves wind power another hates it because it kills birds. One group loves natural gas and how clean it burns while others hate the impacts due to drilling.

Environmentalists are probably the wackiest collective group on the planet.

#29 Posted by Neoklondiak (352 posts) -

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Youshould try reading the articles you post and not just commenting on the titles. Title is misleading as hell when you actually read the article. Aljosa23

What makes you think I didn't? Title is only like that for shock value but you're right, I'll change it.

HALF OF GREAT BARRIER REEF EATEN BY GODZILLA, AUSTRALIAN PM DECLARES NATIONAL EMERGENCY

MOTHRA BLOCKS OUT THE SUN, CROPS DIE WORLDWIDE

#30 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Youshould try reading the articles you post and not just commenting on the titles. Title is misleading as hell when you actually read the article. Neoklondiak

What makes you think I didn't? Title is only like that for shock value but you're right, I'll change it.

HALF OF GREAT BARRIER REEF EATEN BY GODZILLA, AUSTRALIAN PM DECLARES NATIONAL EMERGENCY

NO NO it's says ALIENS ARE DESTROYING THE REEF!

original?v=mpbl-1&px=-1

#31 Posted by Jesus-Jew (47 posts) -

[QUOTE="Jesus-Jew"][QUOTE="Neoklondiak"]

I'd prescribe nuclear reactors but the eco crowd seems to only want a solution that A. doesn't exist. or B. is absurdly costly and impractical.

KC_Hokie

Electricity is only a part of the equation (see: cars and efficient use of energy). Insofar as it is partially accountable for AGW, if coal was replaced by nuclear energy, it would be much, much, much, much cleaner. Realistically, since natural gas plants would emit only a fraction of greenhouse gas emission per kW * hr that coal does (but more than nuclear), that is probably what will happen. If environmentalists took themselves seriously OR nuclear was cheaper, I think it would happen, but it probably won't. Fossil fuels forever is the horoscope of the day.

Environmentalists are strange people. One group loves nuclear power while another blocks it. One group loves wind power another hates it because it kills birds. One group loves natural gas and how clean it burns while others hate the impacts due to drilling.

Environmentalists are probably the wackiest collective group on the planet.

While I agree, something about stones and glass houses.
#32 Posted by MrGeezer (57122 posts) -
How sad. By the time I finally go diving there, the coral will be gone. :(Aljosa23
It really is all about you, isn't it?