4 ms·

It 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/augu

It 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 ago
Raw 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 ago
  No 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.
  - pests 3y ago
    Why do we assume diversity is the goal? When things change, only a sunset will survive. Isnt that just a law of nature?
    - freshpots 3y ago
      https://www.conservation.org/blog/why-is-biodiversity-important https://www.conservation.org/blog/why-is-biodiversity-import...
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  That 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 ago
Most 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.”

ceejayoz 3y ago

Raw 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 ago
No 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.
- pests 3y ago
  Why do we assume diversity is the goal? When things change, only a sunset will survive. Isnt that just a law of nature?
  - freshpots 3y ago
    https://www.conservation.org/blog/why-is-biodiversity-important https://www.conservation.org/blog/why-is-biodiversity-import...
nvm0n2 3y ago
That 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 ago

Most 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.”