30 ms·

Scientists record biggest ever coral die-off on Australia's Great Barrier Reef

280 points by af16090 10y ago

aplummer 10y ago
In the last half decade the reef at port douglas has gone from "Straight out of finding nemo" to a ghostly wasteland (from personally diving there). It's a real shame. There are still smaller good bits you can find, but overall it's no good at all.
- artursapek 10y ago
  Is it possible this has nothing to do with human activity, and naturally happens on its own? (Thinking along the lines of a forest fire)
  - dmritard96 10y ago
    its possible that aliens wrote my code for me today and I was just a host, but possible and likely are important distinctions. When there is overwhelming consensus on man made climate change, ocean acidification, and we see bleaching that seems to be highly correlated with dissolved CO2 or ocean temps rising, its hard to imagine that this is just random chance. It could be, but it likely isn't.
    - lettergram 10y ago
      I don't argue that humans impact climate change... But I do want to mention that around 3000BC the world was roughly 2°C warmer, which is what most climatologist claim we will be at after we continue to burn fossil fuels (until we probably run out) Overall, this isn't "random chance", but it's also probably happened before within the span of human existence. The world changes and I am sure the world will adapt, and while that happens mass extinctions and horrible growing pains will likely occur
      - astrange 10y ago
        What's your point? You've written this as a disagreement but you still think everything will be bad.
      - scarmig 10y ago
        Sure, but atmospheric CO2 concentrations haven't been this high in anywhere from a million to twenty five million years. Coral reef death is as much related to ocean acidification as it is to temperature increase. And it's very easy to write off the effects of climate change as "horrible growing pains," but to be concrete about it: you're talking about the deaths of potentially millions of people. This is a moral issue on par with Auschwitz or the Gulag. And while you're free to shrug your shoulders with, "well, shit happens," it's silly to act as if people concerned about it are histrionic tree huggers.
        dmix 10y ago
        How will climate change cause millions of people to die? Honest question. I thought most of the damage would be monetary via mass relocation. Are those deaths preventable outside of human behavioral change to keep temperatures lower?
        scarmig 10y ago
        You say mass relocation like it's a vacation to the French Riviera. Within developed countries, climate change will be costly but not particularly deadly. A few more heat exhaustion deaths, a few fewer cold-related deaths, and it all balances it. If anything, climate change will be good for mortality in developed countries, because cold kills a whole lot more people than heat now. Remediating the effects of climate change will be very expensive, on the other hand, and I buy the equation that throwing away money is throwing away lives, but let's leave that aside for now. The big issue is in developing countries. All of them are exceptionally vulnerable to climate change, since they're nearer the equator; all of them have severely resource-constrained economies; all of them have less stable political cultures and are more likely to go to war with nearby neighbors; most of them have megalopolises built in areas susceptible to climate change. Mass relocation just simply isn't in the cards for them. Dhaka is a couple meters above sea level on average: what happens when the sea level rises by a meter? I remind you that it's a city of around 20 million people, and the rich tend to live in higher elevations than the poorest, densest areas. Where do they go? Does Bangladesh go through a massive infrastructure project to build Netherlands-scale dikes? Who pays for it? Donald Trump? Or maybe the USA and Europe open their doors to millions of Muslim immigrants from Bangladesh alone? Dhaka is an extreme case, but this story replays itself all over. And there are other factors to account for: increase malaria prevalence by 10% and you've killed 50k/year. These things add up. And of course you can say, "well, sure, but you can use money to save these lives!" But if we're utterly unwilling to bear any costs of our pollution now, why would we be willing to in 2100? Our grandchildren might fairly say, well, it was our asshole grandparents who selfishly shat all over the world, why should we have to suffer exceptionally for it?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - monkmartinez 10y ago
      I didn't know we had mapped the entire ocean floor and were measuring the dissolved gasses from all the sub-surface volcanoes. Can you share how they relate or correlate to that of human based emissions?
      - harwoodleon 10y ago
        I can't be sure why you are lying in the road struggling to breathe with multiple fractures. It could be that truck I heard go by that may have just hit you at 90 mph, i didn't see it so I can't be sure. Because I can't be absolutely sure why you are in the state you are in, best not to do anything.
      - dmritard96 10y ago
        "Warm seas around Australia's Great Barrier Reef have killed two-thirds of a 700-km (435 miles) stretch of coral in the past nine months, the worst die-off ever recorded on the World Heritage site, scientists who surveyed the reef said on Tuesday." ""The coral is essentially cooked," professor Andrew Baird, a researcher at James Cook University who was part of the reef surveys, told Reuters by telephone from Townsville in Australia's tropical north." "While bleaching occurs naturally, scientists are concerned that rising sea temperatures caused by global warming magnifies the damage, leaving sensitive underwater ecosystems unable to recover." http://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-environment-idUSKBN13O059 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-environment-idUS...
        refurb 10y ago
        "While bleaching occurs naturally, scientists are concerned that rising sea temperatures caused by global warming magnifies the damage, leaving sensitive underwater ecosystems unable to recover." This seems to indicate they're not sure how much impact global warming is having. Is it 10%? 90%? Would be good to know.
        manarth 10y ago
        Is it 10%? 90%? Would be good to know. It would be good to know, and it would be very good to know whilst the effect is still reversible. It would be a great shame to discover that our fears about man-made climate change were correct, but it's too late for any changes to have a meaningful effect.
    - artursapek 10y ago
      What a stupid, dismissive response. I am not doubting human activity has impacted the change in climate. I'm just curious to know more about this specific symptom. Do coral reefs go through the same kind of cycles that forests do? Or have these reefs been around for thousands of years uninterrupted?
      - abandonliberty 10y ago
        You feeling ok? Discourse here is usually a bit more civilized.
  - monkmartinez 10y ago
    I really wish you were taken more seriously. I worked at AFWA (Offutt AFB) from 2002 to 2004. I worked at the Global Wx and Event desk where we tracked hurricanes, volcanic activity, haboob's and more! I am no Phd scientist, but thoroughly enjoyed the conversations|discussions|arguments on "climate change." I would stare at a large monitor and pick out a volcanic plume easily while the city of Quito was not even recognizable. I would really have to hunt for LA or San Francisco in comparison to a giant haboob in the ME. Your standard cold front is more recognizable than any major city from the satellites we used (30m, 15m, 10m mostly). Pondering how often these volcanoes erupt and send horrific gases aloft, it is hard to say; "Humans are doing it ALL!" Not to mention the thousands (tens, or hundreds of thousands?) of underwater volcanoes that emit all sorts of horribleness. Then you contemplate that the Earth has been here for 4 billion years + or - a few million... How much hubris do we have to measure for a couple hundred years and say unequivocally; "Humans DID this!!!" It seems a bit...
    - harwoodleon 10y ago
      Seems a bit what? I really wish I could take you more seriously. There is undoubted, undeniable evidence that human factors caused this bleaching effect. Yes humans are doing it ALL. It is not up for debate.
      - monkmartinez 10y ago
        It is up for debate. Whether you like it or not, people think differently. People that have actually worked in the field and have Phd's in climatology. I worked with several of them as an airman in the USAF. Get over yourself.
        Oletros 10y ago
        > Whether you like it or not, people think differently. Yes, everybody can think what they want, they are free to be wrong against all the evidence > People that have actually worked in the field and have Phd's in climatology. Where are the papers from those "people with Phd's in climatology"?
  - aplummer 10y ago
    No, a huge part of the damage to the reef is from literally digging a port within the reef and the runoff from that. And not dealing with crown of thorns. And then climate change, which is obviously humans are by far the largest contributor (the evidence for that is actually stronger than the physical port)
- vacri 10y ago
  Did you see recently that Pauline Hanson took some of her mob to a still-vibrant part of the reef to prove 'it's all lies, what they say about the dying reef'? What can you do to convince the wilfully ignorant, I wonder?
  - kirrent 10y ago
    Puzzlingly she didn't go to the reef but went to the coral around Keppel Island. I've been up and down the coast a few times and I don't know if the coral at Keppel could ever have been called vibrant. It seemed like a pretty strange choice of location to me.
- wallace_f 10y ago
  I did a diving trip nearby there just last summer (winter in Australia), and it was not what I imagined it would be. A couple on our boat said they had been there 15 years ago and it was nothing like what they remembered. It was still beautiful, and if you just happen to be there I wouldn't recommend skipping it, but seriously don't go out of your way to take a trip there.
joshkpeterson 10y ago
A message for all the people on HN who think Trump is worth it because he's going to turn the country around: He's not. And he won't.
blondie9x 10y ago
When I see all these catastrophic events related to the the changes we cause to the climate, I sometimes question the point of living the way most of us do. The values and things we chase, our day-to-day endeavors. None of it matters if we don't drive towards sustenance, because nothing would last, all the pursuits would be forgotten, the light of mankind would fade if sustainability isn't the top priority. There would be no way for humans to become an interplanetary species, for generations to continue through all the ages of the universe. Nothing would matter if we live a life now that destroys the potential life of our successors.
- Nition 10y ago
  Yep. And it's very hard to change without everyone else changing as well. And it's very hard for everyone else to change unless that change is mandated at a government level. And it's very hard for change to happen at a government level unless every country is doing it. And that's VERY hard. No-one wants to give everything up while everyone else gets to keep living how they want and ruining the environment for you anyway. I wish we could get more worldwide consensus on real change.
  - harwoodleon 10y ago
    It's not hard to change. If everyone changed what they do day to day (stop flying, stop eating beef, stop driving everywhere), we would not be talking about the future in such a bleak way. But everyone thinks they are the exception, it's OK if they do it. That's why governments introduce taxes to discourage bad behaviour, because people are ultimately stupid.
    - monkmartinez 10y ago
      > If everyone changed what they do day to day (stop flying, stop eating beef, stop driving everywhere), we would not be talking about the future in such a bleak way. And what would replace these things? Would they not create another catastrophic problem in another area? What is the magic bullet that fixes all the world's problems??
tfigment 10y ago
Glad to see the promised investment from PM but its sad that it appears the only reason is because its likely impacting tourism and therefore jobs/income which is likely real reason. I vacationed in Cairns (and elsewhere) in 2001 and was best 3 week vacation ever and GBR was definitely a highlight. If it was dead then I'm not sure we would have gone there. I almost feel that its wasted effort at this point as its like putting your finger in a dam and it will only hold for a short time. We really need to make a serious redesign in behavior and its hard to get any country to do anything and with recent political changes seems less likely and Kyoto will probably fall in short order.
- shakna 10y ago
  We are in a seriously bad place [0] when it comes to our impact on the world. With how politics are right now, I don't see it turning around. [0] http://theconversation.com/how-climate-denial-gained-a-foothold-in-the-liberal-party-and-why-it-still-wont-go-away-56013 http://theconversation.com/how-climate-denial-gained-a-footh...
akandiah 10y ago
Sadly, very few politicians in Australia give a damn about it. It's all about "jobs and growth" over here.
- ant6n 10y ago
  That's the only thing politicians seem to care about anywhere. And strangely, 'jobs' seems always to be referring to manufacturing or construction type jobs. Just bizarre.
  - mrob 10y ago
    Obviously. Manufacturing and construction jobs are the opposite of "bullshit jobs". You can point to something you built and feel satisfied. Anybody can understand it. Service jobs are demeaning because the service worker always has lower social status than the person they serve. Of course politicians care about the same jobs the voters care about.
    - tremon 10y ago
      the service worker always has lower social status than the person they serve I'm not sure about that. Does a doctor have a lower social status than his patient? Does a politician have lower status than his constituents? Does a banker have lower status than the one applying for a loan?
      - mrob 10y ago
        Those aren't pure service workers because they also have an obstructionist/rationing role. They have the power to prevent you from getting medical treatment/loans/etc., which raises their social status.
  - codecamper 10y ago
    It's zombies from the 1800s. It's some sort of denial of the current state of the world. US, UK, & australia are all fixated on the 1950s. How good it was then. It should be that good now. They forget that during that time the US & allies had the only real functioning industry. So obviously with no competitors times were going to be good. We are all supposed to be digging iron ore & making steel all of a sudden. Damn it all to science. I live just once and who cares about a million years of evolution. The reason all this is happening is because technologists give control of their knowledge to people who have no knowledge. We allow them to co-opt us to their plans. It's one way to fix things. Get hard assed about handing out technology to idiots. Have a technologist / humanist sort of president. Bill G would be pretty good.
debt 10y ago
Self aware is thrown around these days. Pretty sure half the country/USA are definitely not self aware.
- b6 10y ago
  Who knows, the people you disagree with might not actually be zombies. They might have good reasons for thinking the way they do.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - monkmartinez 10y ago
    There is no room for contrarian thought here! Obviously, everyone is wrong except us! /s
    - haimez 10y ago
      Meta
    - tremon 10y ago
      A simple variation on "the Others are stupid" is not contrarian at all. It is intellectually lazy and will not improve anything.
  - aplummer 10y ago
    Yea, but also they might actually be zombies, without good reasons for thinking the way they do.
  - ghostDancer 10y ago
    Yes it's god's will and a punishment for gay marriage. /s
    - grzm 10y ago
      Not even funny as a joke.
oska 10y ago
If you'd told Australians in the 70s and 80s that the Great Barrier Reef would suffer catastrophic impacts in 40 years time and the government would both deny and ignore it, they would have been shocked and in disbelief. Australia was a different country then. The level of climate change denialism and the severe fixation on ‘houses and holes’ (property speculation and mining) is hard to believe if you haven't lived here. The change in political culture started taking hold around the year 2000.
- danieltrembath 10y ago
  I'm not entirely disagreeing with you, but I'm Australian and I was around in the '80s, and there were warnings for the barrier reef then too (in the context of greenhouse effect, and also CFCs and crown of thorns). Sadly for your casual climate denier they interpret this as 'meh, they've been saying the reef will die for years, and it's still here'. I don't agree with that thinking, and I understand that the threats then are a mix of the same and different ones now. But the '80s were no more enlightened on the matter than now. Don't mind me. The older I get the more I grump at people's perceptions of the past ;)
- iamgopal 10y ago
  What "Only Australians" could have done to avoid this ?
  - aplummer 10y ago
    The majority of the damage to the reef is actually crown of thorns, and runoff from dredging / mining operations - not climate change. Definitely not building a port could have helped.
    - Tempest1981 10y ago
      I was curious, and found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown-of-thorns_starfish#Ecological_impact_on_reefs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown-of-thorns_starfish#Ecolo... They are 25-30 cm starfish with up to 21 arms, and they damage the reefs. It does say that "warmer sea temperatures enhance larvae development", with this reference: http://www.nature.com/articles/srep08402 http://www.nature.com/articles/srep08402
caub 10y ago
7 billion human is a lot, but it could still work and not destroy the planet if people wasn't so much overconsuming resources. I think I've 10% or less of the average human environmental impact in my area
- woogiewonka 10y ago
  Can you plz tell my mom to stop buying me shitty clothes for holidays I didn't ask for.
sullyj3 10y ago
Phrasing like this pisses me off: "Climate scientists argue that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat radiating from earth, creating global warming." The words "argue that" imply that the matter is still in dispute.
- adevine 10y ago
  Especially because the fact that increased carbon dioxide traps heat radiating from Earth is just that: a proven physical fact. There is absolutely 0 disagreement on that from anyone who isn't a complete fraud. There is some debate about what the end consequences of that physical fact are, about how much feedback loops affect the overall temperature, about the total contribution of man-made vs natural causes, etc. But saying "Climate scientists argue ..." is like saying "Chemists argue that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen."
  - ezequiel-garzon 10y ago
    It is a grave disservice to climate change prevention to attribute all ills to it. From Wikipedia [1]: "Coral reefs are dying around the world. Human impact on coral reefs is significant. Coral reefs are dying around the world. In particular, coral mining, pollution (organic and non-organic), overfishing, blast fishing and the digging of canals and access into islands and bays are serious threats to these ecosystems." I believe we as a global society should err on the side of caution, but I doubt scientists like Freeman Dyson are frauds. Probably climate science is way more complex than generally perceived, but that shouldn't lead us to inaction. I heartily recommend [2]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_with_coral_reefs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_with_co... [2] https://www.edge.org/conversation/freeman_dyson-heretical-thoughts-about-science-and-society https://www.edge.org/conversation/freeman_dyson-heretical-th...
    - _coldfire 10y ago
      Argument to complexity is not sound logic, yes, it is complex, if there is an issue with models or margins of error, then that issue needs to be raised, but handwaving "complexity" helps no one. Otherwise, well said, do agree, humans can be amazingly over-cautious with certain matters like air-travel but with large scale phenomena like climate change we are terribly foolhardy. There is nothing wrong with being prudent. Regarding the Great Barrier Reef, farm runoff (sediment, nitrogen) has a massive contribution to coral bleaching. Not mentioned once in this article. Warmer waters do contribute but it's not enough for the scale of dieoffs seen. It's been nearly ten years since farmers signed an agreement to reduce runoff, so far they've achieved about 10% and are unlikely to meet 2018 targets, if they keep going at this rate it will take 40 years to reach the stated reduction goals. Farmers hold a lot of sway in Australian politics and I dont see that changing anytime soon.
waketheFup 10y ago
A timely news story. Just watched the latest episode of Years of Living Dangerously on NatGeo. Check it out. It explains why this is such a big deal.
disposablezero 10y ago
According to the best climate models: Mexico, most of the US, Spain, Italy are completely fucked in terms of ariable land. Alaska, Ethiopia and parts of India are projected to be the only real benefactors. When food and water run out, Mad Max will be a comparative fairy tale. Here's some quality videos by actual climate scientists (trigger warning: science): https://youtu.be/ntOgBMgENTU https://youtu.be/ntOgBMgENTU https://youtu.be/8iEj76iX-xE https://youtu.be/8iEj76iX-xE https://youtu.be/UOm2t3QMR6k https://youtu.be/UOm2t3QMR6k https://youtu.be/iOztwk6bjjU https://youtu.be/iOztwk6bjjU
codecamper 10y ago
Don't worry. This is not what is important folks. Reef schmeef. Fish! ha. who cares about millions of years of evolution. We can wait another million years to get it back! What is important right now is making sure that people who can barely read who live in west Virginia can continue to count on burning coal so they can afford a big truck.
- contingencies 10y ago
  Agreed. Don't forget to ship them out of season foods produced through wasteful industrial processes with special oil-linked subsidies, regularly re-clothe them in garments from the other side of the world, and sell them needless nick-knacks from China. Better yet, let's make sure nothing at all lasts so we have to throw it out and buy new ones. (Non-sarcasm: IMHO government could do many things - tax irreparable goods heavily, subsidize low-transport or low carbon production solutions, add sustainability to national education syllabuses, fund national and international networks of alternate energy transportation systems (starting with trains and boats), reward repairs, and heavily dis-incentivize fiscal middle-men for venture funding.)
codecamper 10y ago
Understanding a little science implies that you are interested in how the world works. It also helps to be close to nature to keep that sense of fascination. Get your mind thinking about the improbability of life in the universe. Then you wonder... why are we the only planet with intelligent life? Why don't we see / hear evidence of life on other planets? Then you realize that our planet has accomplished this amazing thing... to balance the levels of solar energy with our native chemistry so that life can flourish. We know that conditions for life are the result of millions of years of balancing. With life consuming oxygen & producing CO2. Now we have the problem that the people in charge do not share this fascination. They are only interested in their gain & immediate situation. We live on a planet where if you change the thermostat just 1 degree in either direction, massive changes occur. It's like seeing a top that is spinning, and giving it a good swift kick.
Rexxar 10y ago
Does anyone know if it would be possible/useful to create some artificial "cool zone" to help the coral to survive in some place in order to ease recolonization after such events ?

280 points by af16090 10y ago

In the last half decade the reef at port douglas has gone from "Straight out of finding nemo" to a ghostly wasteland (from personally diving there). It's a real shame. There are still smaller good bits you can find, but overall it's no good at all.

artursapek 10y ago
Is it possible this has nothing to do with human activity, and naturally happens on its own? (Thinking along the lines of a forest fire)
- dmritard96 10y ago
  its possible that aliens wrote my code for me today and I was just a host, but possible and likely are important distinctions. When there is overwhelming consensus on man made climate change, ocean acidification, and we see bleaching that seems to be highly correlated with dissolved CO2 or ocean temps rising, its hard to imagine that this is just random chance. It could be, but it likely isn't.
  - lettergram 10y ago
    I don't argue that humans impact climate change... But I do want to mention that around 3000BC the world was roughly 2°C warmer, which is what most climatologist claim we will be at after we continue to burn fossil fuels (until we probably run out) Overall, this isn't "random chance", but it's also probably happened before within the span of human existence. The world changes and I am sure the world will adapt, and while that happens mass extinctions and horrible growing pains will likely occur
    - astrange 10y ago
      What's your point? You've written this as a disagreement but you still think everything will be bad.
    - scarmig 10y ago
      Sure, but atmospheric CO2 concentrations haven't been this high in anywhere from a million to twenty five million years. Coral reef death is as much related to ocean acidification as it is to temperature increase. And it's very easy to write off the effects of climate change as "horrible growing pains," but to be concrete about it: you're talking about the deaths of potentially millions of people. This is a moral issue on par with Auschwitz or the Gulag. And while you're free to shrug your shoulders with, "well, shit happens," it's silly to act as if people concerned about it are histrionic tree huggers.
      - dmix 10y ago
        How will climate change cause millions of people to die? Honest question. I thought most of the damage would be monetary via mass relocation. Are those deaths preventable outside of human behavioral change to keep temperatures lower?
        scarmig 10y ago
        You say mass relocation like it's a vacation to the French Riviera. Within developed countries, climate change will be costly but not particularly deadly. A few more heat exhaustion deaths, a few fewer cold-related deaths, and it all balances it. If anything, climate change will be good for mortality in developed countries, because cold kills a whole lot more people than heat now. Remediating the effects of climate change will be very expensive, on the other hand, and I buy the equation that throwing away money is throwing away lives, but let's leave that aside for now. The big issue is in developing countries. All of them are exceptionally vulnerable to climate change, since they're nearer the equator; all of them have severely resource-constrained economies; all of them have less stable political cultures and are more likely to go to war with nearby neighbors; most of them have megalopolises built in areas susceptible to climate change. Mass relocation just simply isn't in the cards for them. Dhaka is a couple meters above sea level on average: what happens when the sea level rises by a meter? I remind you that it's a city of around 20 million people, and the rich tend to live in higher elevations than the poorest, densest areas. Where do they go? Does Bangladesh go through a massive infrastructure project to build Netherlands-scale dikes? Who pays for it? Donald Trump? Or maybe the USA and Europe open their doors to millions of Muslim immigrants from Bangladesh alone? Dhaka is an extreme case, but this story replays itself all over. And there are other factors to account for: increase malaria prevalence by 10% and you've killed 50k/year. These things add up. And of course you can say, "well, sure, but you can use money to save these lives!" But if we're utterly unwilling to bear any costs of our pollution now, why would we be willing to in 2100? Our grandchildren might fairly say, well, it was our asshole grandparents who selfishly shat all over the world, why should we have to suffer exceptionally for it?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - monkmartinez 10y ago
    I didn't know we had mapped the entire ocean floor and were measuring the dissolved gasses from all the sub-surface volcanoes. Can you share how they relate or correlate to that of human based emissions?
    - harwoodleon 10y ago
      I can't be sure why you are lying in the road struggling to breathe with multiple fractures. It could be that truck I heard go by that may have just hit you at 90 mph, i didn't see it so I can't be sure. Because I can't be absolutely sure why you are in the state you are in, best not to do anything.
    - dmritard96 10y ago
      "Warm seas around Australia's Great Barrier Reef have killed two-thirds of a 700-km (435 miles) stretch of coral in the past nine months, the worst die-off ever recorded on the World Heritage site, scientists who surveyed the reef said on Tuesday." ""The coral is essentially cooked," professor Andrew Baird, a researcher at James Cook University who was part of the reef surveys, told Reuters by telephone from Townsville in Australia's tropical north." "While bleaching occurs naturally, scientists are concerned that rising sea temperatures caused by global warming magnifies the damage, leaving sensitive underwater ecosystems unable to recover." http://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-environment-idUSKBN13O059 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-environment-idUS...
      - refurb 10y ago
        "While bleaching occurs naturally, scientists are concerned that rising sea temperatures caused by global warming magnifies the damage, leaving sensitive underwater ecosystems unable to recover." This seems to indicate they're not sure how much impact global warming is having. Is it 10%? 90%? Would be good to know.
        manarth 10y ago
        Is it 10%? 90%? Would be good to know. It would be good to know, and it would be very good to know whilst the effect is still reversible. It would be a great shame to discover that our fears about man-made climate change were correct, but it's too late for any changes to have a meaningful effect.
  - artursapek 10y ago
    What a stupid, dismissive response. I am not doubting human activity has impacted the change in climate. I'm just curious to know more about this specific symptom. Do coral reefs go through the same kind of cycles that forests do? Or have these reefs been around for thousands of years uninterrupted?
    - abandonliberty 10y ago
      You feeling ok? Discourse here is usually a bit more civilized.
- monkmartinez 10y ago
  I really wish you were taken more seriously. I worked at AFWA (Offutt AFB) from 2002 to 2004. I worked at the Global Wx and Event desk where we tracked hurricanes, volcanic activity, haboob's and more! I am no Phd scientist, but thoroughly enjoyed the conversations|discussions|arguments on "climate change." I would stare at a large monitor and pick out a volcanic plume easily while the city of Quito was not even recognizable. I would really have to hunt for LA or San Francisco in comparison to a giant haboob in the ME. Your standard cold front is more recognizable than any major city from the satellites we used (30m, 15m, 10m mostly). Pondering how often these volcanoes erupt and send horrific gases aloft, it is hard to say; "Humans are doing it ALL!" Not to mention the thousands (tens, or hundreds of thousands?) of underwater volcanoes that emit all sorts of horribleness. Then you contemplate that the Earth has been here for 4 billion years + or - a few million... How much hubris do we have to measure for a couple hundred years and say unequivocally; "Humans DID this!!!" It seems a bit...
  - harwoodleon 10y ago
    Seems a bit what? I really wish I could take you more seriously. There is undoubted, undeniable evidence that human factors caused this bleaching effect. Yes humans are doing it ALL. It is not up for debate.
    - monkmartinez 10y ago
      It is up for debate. Whether you like it or not, people think differently. People that have actually worked in the field and have Phd's in climatology. I worked with several of them as an airman in the USAF. Get over yourself.
      - Oletros 10y ago
        > Whether you like it or not, people think differently. Yes, everybody can think what they want, they are free to be wrong against all the evidence > People that have actually worked in the field and have Phd's in climatology. Where are the papers from those "people with Phd's in climatology"?
- aplummer 10y ago
  No, a huge part of the damage to the reef is from literally digging a port within the reef and the runoff from that. And not dealing with crown of thorns. And then climate change, which is obviously humans are by far the largest contributor (the evidence for that is actually stronger than the physical port)
vacri 10y ago
Did you see recently that Pauline Hanson took some of her mob to a still-vibrant part of the reef to prove 'it's all lies, what they say about the dying reef'? What can you do to convince the wilfully ignorant, I wonder?
- kirrent 10y ago
  Puzzlingly she didn't go to the reef but went to the coral around Keppel Island. I've been up and down the coast a few times and I don't know if the coral at Keppel could ever have been called vibrant. It seemed like a pretty strange choice of location to me.
wallace_f 10y ago
I did a diving trip nearby there just last summer (winter in Australia), and it was not what I imagined it would be. A couple on our boat said they had been there 15 years ago and it was nothing like what they remembered. It was still beautiful, and if you just happen to be there I wouldn't recommend skipping it, but seriously don't go out of your way to take a trip there.

joshkpeterson 10y ago

A message for all the people on HN who think Trump is worth it because he's going to turn the country around: He's not. And he won't.

blondie9x 10y ago

When I see all these catastrophic events related to the the changes we cause to the climate, I sometimes question the point of living the way most of us do. The values and things we chase, our day-to-day endeavors. None of it matters if we don't drive towards sustenance, because nothing would last, all the pursuits would be forgotten, the light of mankind would fade if sustainability isn't the top priority. There would be no way for humans to become an interplanetary species, for generations to continue through all the ages of the universe. Nothing would matter if we live a life now that destroys the potential life of our successors.

Nition 10y ago
Yep. And it's very hard to change without everyone else changing as well. And it's very hard for everyone else to change unless that change is mandated at a government level. And it's very hard for change to happen at a government level unless every country is doing it. And that's VERY hard. No-one wants to give everything up while everyone else gets to keep living how they want and ruining the environment for you anyway. I wish we could get more worldwide consensus on real change.
- harwoodleon 10y ago
  It's not hard to change. If everyone changed what they do day to day (stop flying, stop eating beef, stop driving everywhere), we would not be talking about the future in such a bleak way. But everyone thinks they are the exception, it's OK if they do it. That's why governments introduce taxes to discourage bad behaviour, because people are ultimately stupid.
  - monkmartinez 10y ago
    > If everyone changed what they do day to day (stop flying, stop eating beef, stop driving everywhere), we would not be talking about the future in such a bleak way. And what would replace these things? Would they not create another catastrophic problem in another area? What is the magic bullet that fixes all the world's problems??

tfigment 10y ago

Glad to see the promised investment from PM but its sad that it appears the only reason is because its likely impacting tourism and therefore jobs/income which is likely real reason. I vacationed in Cairns (and elsewhere) in 2001 and was best 3 week vacation ever and GBR was definitely a highlight. If it was dead then I'm not sure we would have gone there. I almost feel that its wasted effort at this point as its like putting your finger in a dam and it will only hold for a short time. We really need to make a serious redesign in behavior and its hard to get any country to do anything and with recent political changes seems less likely and Kyoto will probably fall in short order.

shakna 10y ago
We are in a seriously bad place [0] when it comes to our impact on the world. With how politics are right now, I don't see it turning around. [0] http://theconversation.com/how-climate-denial-gained-a-foothold-in-the-liberal-party-and-why-it-still-wont-go-away-56013 http://theconversation.com/how-climate-denial-gained-a-footh...

akandiah 10y ago

Sadly, very few politicians in Australia give a damn about it. It's all about "jobs and growth" over here.

ant6n 10y ago
That's the only thing politicians seem to care about anywhere. And strangely, 'jobs' seems always to be referring to manufacturing or construction type jobs. Just bizarre.
- mrob 10y ago
  Obviously. Manufacturing and construction jobs are the opposite of "bullshit jobs". You can point to something you built and feel satisfied. Anybody can understand it. Service jobs are demeaning because the service worker always has lower social status than the person they serve. Of course politicians care about the same jobs the voters care about.
  - tremon 10y ago
    the service worker always has lower social status than the person they serve I'm not sure about that. Does a doctor have a lower social status than his patient? Does a politician have lower status than his constituents? Does a banker have lower status than the one applying for a loan?
    - mrob 10y ago
      Those aren't pure service workers because they also have an obstructionist/rationing role. They have the power to prevent you from getting medical treatment/loans/etc., which raises their social status.
- codecamper 10y ago
  It's zombies from the 1800s. It's some sort of denial of the current state of the world. US, UK, & australia are all fixated on the 1950s. How good it was then. It should be that good now. They forget that during that time the US & allies had the only real functioning industry. So obviously with no competitors times were going to be good. We are all supposed to be digging iron ore & making steel all of a sudden. Damn it all to science. I live just once and who cares about a million years of evolution. The reason all this is happening is because technologists give control of their knowledge to people who have no knowledge. We allow them to co-opt us to their plans. It's one way to fix things. Get hard assed about handing out technology to idiots. Have a technologist / humanist sort of president. Bill G would be pretty good.

debt 10y ago

Self aware is thrown around these days. Pretty sure half the country/USA are definitely not self aware.

b6 10y ago
Who knows, the people you disagree with might not actually be zombies. They might have good reasons for thinking the way they do.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- monkmartinez 10y ago
  There is no room for contrarian thought here! Obviously, everyone is wrong except us! /s
  - haimez 10y ago
    Meta
  - tremon 10y ago
    A simple variation on "the Others are stupid" is not contrarian at all. It is intellectually lazy and will not improve anything.
- aplummer 10y ago
  Yea, but also they might actually be zombies, without good reasons for thinking the way they do.
- ghostDancer 10y ago
  Yes it's god's will and a punishment for gay marriage. /s
  - grzm 10y ago
    Not even funny as a joke.

oska 10y ago

If you'd told Australians in the 70s and 80s that the Great Barrier Reef would suffer catastrophic impacts in 40 years time and the government would both deny and ignore it, they would have been shocked and in disbelief. Australia was a different country then. The level of climate change denialism and the severe fixation on ‘houses and holes’ (property speculation and mining) is hard to believe if you haven't lived here. The change in political culture started taking hold around the year 2000.

danieltrembath 10y ago
I'm not entirely disagreeing with you, but I'm Australian and I was around in the '80s, and there were warnings for the barrier reef then too (in the context of greenhouse effect, and also CFCs and crown of thorns). Sadly for your casual climate denier they interpret this as 'meh, they've been saying the reef will die for years, and it's still here'. I don't agree with that thinking, and I understand that the threats then are a mix of the same and different ones now. But the '80s were no more enlightened on the matter than now. Don't mind me. The older I get the more I grump at people's perceptions of the past ;)
iamgopal 10y ago
What "Only Australians" could have done to avoid this ?
- aplummer 10y ago
  The majority of the damage to the reef is actually crown of thorns, and runoff from dredging / mining operations - not climate change. Definitely not building a port could have helped.
  - Tempest1981 10y ago
    I was curious, and found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown-of-thorns_starfish#Ecological_impact_on_reefs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown-of-thorns_starfish#Ecolo... They are 25-30 cm starfish with up to 21 arms, and they damage the reefs. It does say that "warmer sea temperatures enhance larvae development", with this reference: http://www.nature.com/articles/srep08402 http://www.nature.com/articles/srep08402

caub 10y ago

7 billion human is a lot, but it could still work and not destroy the planet if people wasn't so much overconsuming resources. I think I've 10% or less of the average human environmental impact in my area

woogiewonka 10y ago
Can you plz tell my mom to stop buying me shitty clothes for holidays I didn't ask for.

sullyj3 10y ago

Phrasing like this pisses me off: "Climate scientists argue that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat radiating from earth, creating global warming." The words "argue that" imply that the matter is still in dispute.

adevine 10y ago
Especially because the fact that increased carbon dioxide traps heat radiating from Earth is just that: a proven physical fact. There is absolutely 0 disagreement on that from anyone who isn't a complete fraud. There is some debate about what the end consequences of that physical fact are, about how much feedback loops affect the overall temperature, about the total contribution of man-made vs natural causes, etc. But saying "Climate scientists argue ..." is like saying "Chemists argue that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen."
- ezequiel-garzon 10y ago
  It is a grave disservice to climate change prevention to attribute all ills to it. From Wikipedia [1]: "Coral reefs are dying around the world. Human impact on coral reefs is significant. Coral reefs are dying around the world. In particular, coral mining, pollution (organic and non-organic), overfishing, blast fishing and the digging of canals and access into islands and bays are serious threats to these ecosystems." I believe we as a global society should err on the side of caution, but I doubt scientists like Freeman Dyson are frauds. Probably climate science is way more complex than generally perceived, but that shouldn't lead us to inaction. I heartily recommend [2]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_with_coral_reefs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_with_co... [2] https://www.edge.org/conversation/freeman_dyson-heretical-thoughts-about-science-and-society https://www.edge.org/conversation/freeman_dyson-heretical-th...
  - _coldfire 10y ago
    Argument to complexity is not sound logic, yes, it is complex, if there is an issue with models or margins of error, then that issue needs to be raised, but handwaving "complexity" helps no one. Otherwise, well said, do agree, humans can be amazingly over-cautious with certain matters like air-travel but with large scale phenomena like climate change we are terribly foolhardy. There is nothing wrong with being prudent. Regarding the Great Barrier Reef, farm runoff (sediment, nitrogen) has a massive contribution to coral bleaching. Not mentioned once in this article. Warmer waters do contribute but it's not enough for the scale of dieoffs seen. It's been nearly ten years since farmers signed an agreement to reduce runoff, so far they've achieved about 10% and are unlikely to meet 2018 targets, if they keep going at this rate it will take 40 years to reach the stated reduction goals. Farmers hold a lot of sway in Australian politics and I dont see that changing anytime soon.

waketheFup 10y ago

A timely news story. Just watched the latest episode of Years of Living Dangerously on NatGeo. Check it out. It explains why this is such a big deal.

disposablezero 10y ago

According to the best climate models: Mexico, most of the US, Spain, Italy are completely fucked in terms of ariable land. Alaska, Ethiopia and parts of India are projected to be the only real benefactors. When food and water run out, Mad Max will be a comparative fairy tale. Here's some quality videos by actual climate scientists (trigger warning: science): https://youtu.be/ntOgBMgENTU https://youtu.be/ntOgBMgENTU https://youtu.be/8iEj76iX-xE https://youtu.be/8iEj76iX-xE https://youtu.be/UOm2t3QMR6k https://youtu.be/UOm2t3QMR6k https://youtu.be/iOztwk6bjjU https://youtu.be/iOztwk6bjjU

codecamper 10y ago

Don't worry. This is not what is important folks. Reef schmeef. Fish! ha. who cares about millions of years of evolution. We can wait another million years to get it back! What is important right now is making sure that people who can barely read who live in west Virginia can continue to count on burning coal so they can afford a big truck.

contingencies 10y ago
Agreed. Don't forget to ship them out of season foods produced through wasteful industrial processes with special oil-linked subsidies, regularly re-clothe them in garments from the other side of the world, and sell them needless nick-knacks from China. Better yet, let's make sure nothing at all lasts so we have to throw it out and buy new ones. (Non-sarcasm: IMHO government could do many things - tax irreparable goods heavily, subsidize low-transport or low carbon production solutions, add sustainability to national education syllabuses, fund national and international networks of alternate energy transportation systems (starting with trains and boats), reward repairs, and heavily dis-incentivize fiscal middle-men for venture funding.)

codecamper 10y ago

Understanding a little science implies that you are interested in how the world works. It also helps to be close to nature to keep that sense of fascination. Get your mind thinking about the improbability of life in the universe. Then you wonder... why are we the only planet with intelligent life? Why don't we see / hear evidence of life on other planets? Then you realize that our planet has accomplished this amazing thing... to balance the levels of solar energy with our native chemistry so that life can flourish. We know that conditions for life are the result of millions of years of balancing. With life consuming oxygen & producing CO2. Now we have the problem that the people in charge do not share this fascination. They are only interested in their gain & immediate situation. We live on a planet where if you change the thermostat just 1 degree in either direction, massive changes occur. It's like seeing a top that is spinning, and giving it a good swift kick.

Rexxar 10y ago

Does anyone know if it would be possible/useful to create some artificial "cool zone" to help the coral to survive in some place in order to ease recolonization after such events ?