9 ms·
A wild idea to protect the Great Barrier Reef
- ceejayoz 3y agoI hope they can find something that works. I’ve visited the reef (same spot each time) twice, once in the late 1990s and once in 2016; the difference was shocking.
- olalonde 3y agoIt seems like coral cover is now higher than it was in the 90s[0]. A lot of it is probably just natural variability. [0] https://www.tropicnow.com.au/2022/august/4/best-coral-cover-since-the-1980s-report-shows-great-barrier-reef-has-bounced-back https://www.tropicnow.com.au/2022/august/4/best-coral-cover-...
- ceejayoz 3y agoRaw coverage isn’t the only concern. Diverse colorful species being replaced with a more monocultural set of corals that can survive in warmer water sucks too.
- RetroTechie 3y agoNo doubt that will be seen across many ecosystems in decades ahead. The set of species that thrives in a changed or fast-changing ecosystem, is (usually) less diverse than the one thriving under slow-changing conditions.
- nvm0n2 3y agoThat isn't a problem either. It is tautologically true that if corals experience a natural die-off, and then you look at it soon after, the species you mostly see will be the ones that grow the fastest. The other slower growing species will appear more later. The actual problem here is that reef scientists didn't predict the current levels of the GBR. They strongly predicted the opposite, saying that after the last bleaching in ~2020 it could take a decade to recover. Nor is ocean acidification a thing anymore. That theory was debunked years ago, by the founder of Greenpeace no less: https://www.climatedepot.com/2015/06/24/greenpeace-co-founder-dr-patrick-moore-why-coral-reefs-shellfish-will-not-die-from-ocean-acidification/ https://www.climatedepot.com/2015/06/24/greenpeace-co-founde... That's why you hardly hear about it anymore. Better understanding of corals made it clear there's no real problem there. The reefs are millions of years old. Academic study of them is only about 40 years old. They have no clue what they're talking about and this was just proven in the most dramatic way possible: a prediction with near 100% confidence that was proven utterly wrong within <2 years of it being made. You can see why they have been making such predictions when you look at a graph of their dataset: https://dailysceptic.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/coral.png https://dailysceptic.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/coral.pn... Up until about 2010 the level of coral cover was in slow decline. But 1980-2010 is a tiny slice of the history of the corals, and when growth suddenly reversed in 2015 and 2020, reaching record levels, they were taken entirely by surprise. This is what happens when academics extrapolate from tiny datasets in order to drum up funding. Allowing these people to screw with the Earth via geo-engineering, to solve problems that only exist in their minds, would take climate extremism to a whole other level and make the culture war surrounding it way, way hotter. It's just not worth it. They should leave the reefs to do their thing.
- freshpots 3y agoMost of the increase has been driven by fast-growing Acropora corals, which are hard corals known for their reef-building abilities. However, AIMS monitoring program team leader Dr Mike Emslie said domination of one species is not ideal. “These corals are particularly vulnerable to wave damage, like that generated by strong winds and tropical cyclones,” he said. “They are also highly susceptible to coral bleaching, when water temperatures reach elevated levels, and are the preferred prey for crown-of-thorns starfish. “This means that large increases in hard coral cover can quickly be negated by disturbances on reefs where Acropora corals predominate.”
- tremon 3y agoSo, we're well into geo-engineering territory now, with all the uncertainties that brings. Preventative measures to avoid catastrophe have (predictably) failed, so we're now having to spend our energy to mitigate the symptoms of climate change. Has anyone run the numbers on the efficacy of this approach? As in, how many MJ of energy must be spent to avoid a MJ of heat reaching the coral? Is it even possible to offset the heat transfer of an ocean current by cooling water in its path? What are the long-term consequences of salting the air? It's all fine that the water surrounding the reef is relatively still, but how do you keep the air from moving? The team is investigating powering their operations without burning fossil fuels. My suggestion: look into nuclear-powered vessels. Good mobility, no dependence on external energy sources (using solar panels if your goal is to increase cloud cover may not be very useful). As a bonus, using nuclear ships to protect the coral reef is sure to send Greenpeace into a fit.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ip26 3y agoPreventative measures haven't necessarily failed entirely. The renewable power and battery electric vehicle revolutions are underway, and vastly more successful/rapid than almost anyone predicted. But, they need more time. I see geo-engineering as a way to buy time for the science and engineering needed to solve the problem without austerity measures. (unfortunately, while austerity would have allowed us to attain the Paris targets, it was a political lead balloon from the start)
- AlecSchueler 3y ago> Preventative measures haven't necessarily failed entirely Depends you define it. We hadn't completely given up, so it's not a complete failure in that sense. But we have consistently failed to meet every action for the climate goals we set ourselves and have to continuously re-evalute our "best case scenario."
- fennecs 3y agoElectric vehicles are a failure lol.
- Modified3019 3y agoAs a bonus, once perfected this method will also help defend against AI if it starts acting up. Just so long as no one turns me into a battery or something crazy like that.
- crazygringo 3y agoPutting aside potential detrimental side effects, would reducing sunlight over the reefs even work? Aren't there ocean currents and tides and things? Does ocean water really "sit still" for long enough that the temperature could be reduced for weeks, without warmer water from further away flowing in?
- trevoragilbert 3y agoThey talked about that in the article. The lagoon-like nature of the reef apparently means there are reduced currents.
- crazygringo 3y agoAh thank you -- somehow I missed that part. Quoting: > “It’s an average of about 30 or 40 meters deep; it’s very shallow. It’s a huge lagoon where the circulation with the Pacific Ocean is very much cut off. So water exchanges slowly through these 3,000-and-something reefs. The reason that cloud brightening can work for the Great Barrier Reef is that you’ve got all of this water trapped here.”
- steve_adams_86 3y agoThis must be part of how the water can be so incredibly clear here. Where I live, a lot of the turbidity of the water results from marine debris being picked up by heavy tidal movement. We get clear waters occasionally, but it’s typically in the darker periods of the year (winter) when tides are relatively calm. This means less algae and less debris moving around. It makes for stunning diving opportunities, but it’s extremely cold and perfect visibility (by our standards) is pretty rare.
- hipadev23 3y agoJust release sulfur dioxide from a stationary location instead
- ianburrell 3y agoThere isn’t much point to cooling the reef to prevent bleaching when acidification will also kill it. That is much harder to prevent. The only solution is to lower CO2 in the air and water.
- xwdv 3y agoCould we locally prevent acidification somehow? A deacidifider?
- 11235813213455 3y agolet's simply fix the issue at the source
- m_mueller 3y agoNothing is simple when it comes to climate and human economy, unfortunately.
- 11235813213455 3y agoSimple fix at personal level: bike, local & mostly vegetal diet, simple life style, 5% of the average footprint, heath benefits, financial benefits & environmental benefits
- skymast 3y agoSpecies go extinct, it is part of natures way. New species will evolve to take over the niche. Control is a powerful drug.
- 11235813213455 3y agothe way humans have cause massie species extinction isn't very natural, I agree control is useless, but we should rather fix the source issue, ban personal cars, swimming pools, planes, etc..
- rando_dfad 3y agoeverything dies, it is part of nature's way. If, however, someone were to massively accelerate a specific individual's death, we would typically consider that a crime. I would like to think that I will leave this world better than I found it. However, I doubt this goal is achievable. I am actively destroying my children's future, and my hoped for grandchildren's future. I do what little I can to try to lessen the rate of destruction, but we are all part of society and all share the same guilt.
- freshpots 3y agoNew species for what niche? Do you understand what coral reefs are and how they grow? What happens when they die? New species don't magically take their place in short order. Some basic information for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_reef https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_reef Sometimes called rainforests of the sea,[3] shallow coral reefs form some of Earth's most diverse ecosystems. They occupy less than 0.1% of the world's ocean area, about half the area of France, yet they provide a home for at least 25% of all marine species,[4][5][6][7] including fish, mollusks, worms, crustaceans, echinoderms, sponges, tunicates and other cnidarians.[8] Coral reefs flourish in ocean waters that provide few nutrients. They are most commonly found at shallow depths in tropical waters, but deep water and cold water coral reefs exist on smaller scales in other areas.
- sneak 3y agoAre we protecting the reef because of its effects on the wider planet, or because we like it and think it’s pretty and believe it would be tragic to lose it? For example, it seems pretty clear that we would have major problems everywhere on Earth if we clearcut the entire Amazon rainforest. That seems to me to justify saving it. In short: does the Great Barrier Reef’s existence have similar far-flung implications, or is this effort based on status quo bias?
- brucethemoose2 3y agoI don't know, but disrupting an ecosystem has knock-on effects. It could change something else much more directly important to humanity. That is a big premise of climate change mitigation. We don't necessarily know all the knock on effects of CO2 and other pollution, but we don't need to. Any climate/ecosystem alteration is generally disruptive to civilization, which is why things have to be so critical to even discuss geoengineering.
- standardUser 3y agoCoral reefs have potentially the greatest biodiversity of any ecosystem on the planet.
- CatWChainsaw 3y agoSo if a thing doesn't have an immediate functional utility, it doesn't deserve to exist? Please don't question how we got here - your mindset is the answer.
- sneak 3y agoIt seems to me that the Great Barrier Reef is going to go away. That has nothing to do with my mindset, or any actions I have or have not taken. We didn’t start the fire, etc. That said, under discussion is whether or not resources should be spent to save it (and what format the allocation of those resources might be). It is thus more than reasonable to ask “what happens if we don’t?”. Doing nothing is frequently (IMO in the vast majority of times) the best problem-solving strategy. Whenever faced with a problem, my first thought is always “if we do nothing and wait, will this problem go away in an acceptable fashion?” For example: There are many thousands of stray cats out in the world who will die of lack of food and shelter very soon. Does your “mindset” have you out feeding and sheltering them? Do they not matter because they don’t have immediate functional utility? This sort of black and white thinking you seem to be applying doesn’t lend itself well to doing cost/benefit analysis over a set of possible future actions.
- lebuffon 3y agoThere have been recent discussions that we were doing that kind of geo-engineering accidently, in the Atlantic shipping lanes, for many years, when ships burned high sulphur fuel oil. The sulphur dioxide in the exhaust was shielding the ocean from solar radiation keeping the water temperatures cooler. We changed the fuel regulations for ships in 2020. The atlantic ocean near North America is now at all time high temperatures. Could be related. ? https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shipping-rules-are-affecting-global-warming/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shippin...
- SideburnsOfDoom 3y agoWell, the Anthropocene is basically defined by "accidental geo-engineering" mostly via releasing CO2. Getting good at it is one way out.
- dr_dshiv 3y agoSeriously. I personally feel like we need a bit more ambition as a species. Saying that nothing can be done about global warming except to reduce consumption and degrowth is—honestly— a losing message. If more people tried to solve global warming instead of grandstanding over it, I think we’d be a lot closer to solutions. We’ve already accidentally geoengineered the whole planet. I gotta say, I find articles like this to be brilliant. Not easy to write. But this one was emotionally spot on.
- RGamma 3y agoThe stubborn refusal to slightly inconvenience ourselves by foregoing inessential consumption is much more telling of our lack of ambition. Fucking up the planet and the non-human life on it is simply too convenient.
- dr_dshiv 3y agoMaking it an emotional issue is much too convenient. Many people are trying to actively ban science on geoengineering, that’s the context. https://www.uu.nl/en/news/call-for-non-use-agreement-solar-geoengineering https://www.uu.nl/en/news/call-for-non-use-agreement-solar-g...
- luxuryballs 3y agoThis kind of stuff never works long term and often causes some kind of fallout, like an economic bubble when it finally pops.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- spacetimeuser5 3y agoHas anyone tried DMT focus groups to get information on CO2 removal and reef regeneration?
- DoreenMichele 3y agoThere were formidable ethical questions, too. If clouds are used to cool the planet, what incentive is there to reduce greenhouse gas pollution? Whatever the ambient temperature, I'm fond of breathing without pain and without drugs. Maybe I'm weird. Or maybe other people have this same quirk and would like pollution levels to go down anyway.
- graiz 3y agoI wonder if off-shore wind could act as a water mister when there is wind/energy surplus?
- flybrand 3y agoWhy are these ‘experts’ credible when so many experts have been wrong? Topics like this that impact more people deserve much more open scrutiny.
- pstuart 3y agoOn a somewhat tangental note, I've wondered about doing something like this in a desert area: piping seawater into a hot and arid climate, spraying into the air but managing salt collection to avoid salting the earth. My (limited) understanding is that there's a feedback loop (both positive and negative) between vegetation and rainfall -- so why not kickstart it in the positive direction?
- 6th 3y agoIf you give me $444 million AUD from the fed and 3.5 mill. from the state, I'm sure I can come up with a solution to all my problems.
- flagrant_taco 3y agoIt wasn't totally clear to me in the article whether the mist is entirely made up of sea water. It mentions how small the most important particles are, but is that an effect of the missing process or an additive mixed in while atomizing the sea water?