6 ms·
I’ve read it had died off in the past and recovered afterwards. This had happened 5 times in the past 30000 years, From that it would logically follow that reco
by h4b4n3r0 8y ago
I’ve read it had died off in the past and recovered afterwards. This had happened 5 times in the past 30000 years, From that it would logically follow that recovery is possible, just not for these particular specimens. Additionally, it’s hard to tell if the current bleaching is as fatal as everyone here seems to assume. FWIW scientists seem to think the situation is grave, but not as grave and hopeless as the mass media portrays it: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/scientists-pronounce-great-barrier-reef-dead/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/scientists-pronounce-great.... Of course the more balanced view doesn’t drive the clicks quite as well.
- andai 8y agoI've been wondering about this. If they're this sensitive to change, then this can't be the first time massive bleaching has happened. > Terry Hughes, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, said that he was “not impressed by the [article’s] message that we should give up on the [Great Barrier Reef], or that it is already dead.”
- singularity2001 8y agoYes. Downvoting your valid perspective is stupid. More resilient species would quickly fill the gaps and they have. Problem is temperatures are not stable, so every rebuilt reef will need to be rebuilt again in some years. Maybe full recovery when man is gone.