3 ms·

Article has no link. Here is the report: https://www.science.org.au/supporting-science/science-policy-and-analysis/reports-and-publications/risks-australia-thr

Article has no link. Here is the report: https://www.science.org.au/supporting-science/science-policy-and-analysis/reports-and-publications/risks-australia-three-degrees-c-warmer-world https://www.science.org.au/supporting-science/science-policy...

mikedilger 6y ago
The report sites a lot of papers, many of which by one report author Hoegh-Guldberg who has been studying reefs and claiming they are at risk since at least 1999. One of the latest of those papers puts it like this (ideas which the article does not accurately represent): "Even if the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement are achieved, coral reefs are likely to decline by 70–90% relative to their current abundance by midcentury." "Although alarming, coral communities that survive will play a key role in the regeneration of reefs by mid-to-late century. Here, we argue for a coordinated, global coral reef conservation strategy that is centred on 50 large (500 km2) regions that are the least vulnerable to climate change and which are positioned to facilitate future coral reef regeneration." Hoegh-Guldberg, Ove, Kennedy, E. V., Beyer, H.L., McClennen, C., Possingham, H.P., 2018. Securing a Long-term Future for Coral Reefs. Trends Ecol. Evol. 33, 936–944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2018.09.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2018.09.006 They are not "doomed" they are "at risk".
- klyrs 6y ago
  That sounds pretty doomed to me. They're saying that mass destruction is inevitable, and the best path forward is to protect habitat that's got the best chance of future regrowth. Of course, "best chance" is according to imperfect modeling and optimism that people will actually get their shit together on the Paris treaty in the next 30 years. And if 70-90% loss doesn't sound like "doom" to you, may I have 80% of your assets?
  - mikedilger 6y ago
    If it's doomed, why bother? If it's at risk, I can still be motivated to do something to save it.

mikedilger 6y ago

The report sites a lot of papers, many of which by one report author Hoegh-Guldberg who has been studying reefs and claiming they are at risk since at least 1999. One of the latest of those papers puts it like this (ideas which the article does not accurately represent): "Even if the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement are achieved, coral reefs are likely to decline by 70–90% relative to their current abundance by midcentury." "Although alarming, coral communities that survive will play a key role in the regeneration of reefs by mid-to-late century. Here, we argue for a coordinated, global coral reef conservation strategy that is centred on 50 large (500 km2) regions that are the least vulnerable to climate change and which are positioned to facilitate future coral reef regeneration." Hoegh-Guldberg, Ove, Kennedy, E. V., Beyer, H.L., McClennen, C., Possingham, H.P., 2018. Securing a Long-term Future for Coral Reefs. Trends Ecol. Evol. 33, 936–944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2018.09.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2018.09.006 They are not "doomed" they are "at risk".

klyrs 6y ago
That sounds pretty doomed to me. They're saying that mass destruction is inevitable, and the best path forward is to protect habitat that's got the best chance of future regrowth. Of course, "best chance" is according to imperfect modeling and optimism that people will actually get their shit together on the Paris treaty in the next 30 years. And if 70-90% loss doesn't sound like "doom" to you, may I have 80% of your assets?
- mikedilger 6y ago
  If it's doomed, why bother? If it's at risk, I can still be motivated to do something to save it.