Great barrier reef sees record growth

Status
Not open for further replies.
Amity Island

Amity Island

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
Despite years of doom and gloom about global warming, the North and Mid great barrier reef sees record growth with the south hindered only by Starfish. Only recently we have heard statements such as "that the reef will be so degraded by warming seas that it will be gone within 20 years, and that this situation is now irreversible"

www.bbc.com

Great Barrier Reef sees record coral cover, but it is highly vulnerable

Parts of the reef see the most coral growth in 36 years - but it is highly vulnerable to threats.
www.bbc.com
 

Attachments

  • Barrier reef.png
    Barrier reef.png
    130.7 KB · Views: 2
Sadly, they're still at risk, and there's been a massive reduction in biodiversity on the planet due to habitat loss and climate change.
One of the reasons that corals are at threat from climate change is that it makes the sea water slightly more acidic, as the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reacts with the water to form carbonic acid.
Part of the coral's structure is a chalk/calcium carbonate based structure, which is dissolved by the carbonic acid in the water (acid + a base/alkali = a salt + water), which weakens the coral. The water doesn't have to be massively acidic, it just has to be more acidic than the coral can cope with.

You can replicate this at home as an experiment by putting a piece of chalk into a glass of vinegar or cola and it gets attacked by the acid (though it's acetic acid for vinegar, but the same carbonic acid for the fizzy pop). It's also the reason why drinking too much fizzy pop isn't good for your teeth.
[source: did chemistry a long time ago]
 
Windy said:
Sadly, they're still at risk, and there's been a massive reduction in biodiversity on the planet due to habitat loss and climate change.
One of the reasons that corals are at threat from climate change is that it makes the sea water slightly more acidic, as the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reacts with the water to form carbonic acid.
Part of the coral's structure is a chalk/calcium carbonate based structure, which is dissolved by the carbonic acid in the water (acid + a base/alkali = a salt + water), which weakens the coral. The water doesn't have to be massively acidic, it just has to be more acidic than the coral can cope with.

You can replicate this at home as an experiment by putting a piece of chalk into a glass of vinegar or cola and it gets attacked by the acid (though it's acetic acid for vinegar, but the same carbonic acid for the fizzy pop). It's also the reason why drinking too much fizzy pop isn't good for your teeth.
[source: did chemistry a long time ago]
Click to expand...
Despite this, we've seen record growth.

We've had decades of experts and scientists telling us about the great barrier reef being in decline and irreversible, yet not one of these experts said we'd see record growth. It's all been a one sided doom and gloom argument. That's "science" for you. Science leaves possibilities open not case closed.

In terms of vulnerability, I can't think of anything that isn't vulnerable, be it your job, your pension, the roof on ones house, the tyres on your car, the grass in your garden, the roads etc. Everything decays, dies. Everything is temporary. To say that the great barrier reef is vulnerable is a given, just like anything else.
 
Amity Island said:
Despite this, we've seen record growth.

We've had decades of experts and scientists telling us about the great barrier reef being in decline and irreversible, yet not one of these experts said we'd see record growth. It's all been a one sided doom and gloom argument. That's "science" for you. Science leaves possibilities open not case closed.

In terms of vulnerability, I can't think of anything that isn't vulnerable, be it your job, your pension, the roof on ones house, the tyres on your car, the grass in your garden, the roads etc. Everything decays, dies. Everything is temporary. To say that the great barrier reef is vulnerable is a given, just like anything else.
Click to expand...
Er yes I saw that report, oddly not mentioned in mainstream media, doesn't fit the current narrative of the day of course. I take any science article/study/revelation with a huge pinch of salt, if you dig a little there is often a high correlation between their "results" and the results/conclusions showing the financial study's backer in a positive light. My dad used to say to me question everything, form your own opinion once you have studied balanced arguments from all sides. Science used to say the sun revolved round the earth, that thalidomide was safe etc. Guess who said breakfast was the most important meal of the day? Mr. Kellogs. Lol!
 
Amity Island said:
Despite this, we've seen record growth.
Click to expand...
The story says
These latest results demonstrate the reef can recover if conditions allow, Dr Hardisty says, but "acute and severe disturbances" are becoming more frequent and longer.​
The reef has also been damaged by coral-eating crown-of-thorns starfish and tropical cyclones which generate damaging waves.​
Much of the new coral growth - a species called Acropora - is especially exposed to the reef's threats, said Dr Mike Emslie from Aims.​
"This means that... future disturbance can reverse the observed recovery in a short amount of time," he said.​
So I'm not sure it really changes the accepted analysis that coral reefs are at significant risk and are really not doing OK.
 
Eddy Edson said:
The report: https://www.aims.gov.au/monitoring-great-barrier-reef/gbr-condition-summary-2021-22

Good to see some resilience; nothing real here for climate change deniers, but that's never stopped them.
Click to expand...
Eddy,

Just a cursory look back at the past decades of stories and reports, show quite clearly and abundantly that the deniers are the scientists who only peddle one side of the narrative, never expressing any chance or probability of the opposing story. That is by definition misinformation.

They come out now and tell us ooh look, it can make a recovery, but that's definitely not what they have been telling us, decade after decade.

Science leaves things open to new evidence, new discoveries. They were so convinced they were right until they are proven wrong and they make a living out of selling misinformation.

It's as @Dave_Z1a said, it's about presenting both sides of the story, giving a balanced view, not just the one you're funded to present. There is no need to deny anything, just present it all.
 
Amity Island said:
It's as @Dave_Z1a said, it's about presenting both sides of the story, giving a balanced view, not just the one you're funded to present.
Click to expand...
Not all stories have a balanced view. Some are overwhelmingly one sided, and presenting them as balanced would then be misleading. (And the BBC has acknowledged that they have made that kind of error when reporting about climate change.)

I think that's the case with climate change and coral reefs: overwhelmingly, scientists think warming and increasing carbon dioxide levels is bad news for coral reefs. Maybe there are some parts of coral reefs that might expand (and that would be good news, worth reporting (as the BBC has done)) but overall they seem to be dying.
 
Just because there is some increase in growth doesn't alter the fact that the reef was in decline in the past - and it is no guarantee that there will be continued growth, or that regeneration can and will occur.
Some people claim that forest is increased when great swathes of single type foreign sourced trees are planted in strict rows, allowed to grew, are then cut down and the ground sterilized before another lot is planted - nothing could be further from the truth.
The original ecosystem of the reef is still under threat just as much as before, or perhaps even more so as something different is growing now in the same space.
 
Rob Oldfield said:
The very first post on the thread was a link to a BBC version of the story. The BBC doesn't count as 'mainstream'?
Click to expand...
Defiantly not! Mickey mouse blatantly biased outfit.
 
Drummer said:
Just because there is some increase in growth doesn't alter the fact that the reef was in decline in the past - and it is no guarantee that there will be continued growth, or that regeneration can and will occur.
Some people claim that forest is increased when great swathes of single type foreign sourced trees are planted in strict rows, allowed to grew, are then cut down and the ground sterilized before another lot is planted - nothing could be further from the truth.
The original ecosystem of the reef is still under threat just as much as before, or perhaps even more so as something different is growing now in the same space.
Click to expand...

This thread caught my eye because even though I have an "ignore" on the original poster it's popped up in what's new, and I intend to dive The Great Barrier Reef one day.
Unfortunately, the survey was carried out before the great bleaching that occurred again this year, but more importantly, it's like saying it's ok, all the grass has died off in the lawn, but loads of moss has replaced it.
Oh, and the garden is overrun with snails that will eat the moss.
I don't think I will see the original Barrier Reef, and the variety and abundance of the original creatures.

It seems we agree here 🙂
 
Rob Oldfield said:
Where's the evidence to support 'likely to rebound in the future'?
Click to expand...
That's the trouble with making predictions without taking into account other possibilities. I think if we had really long term data, we might see the types of cycles from year to year in the graph I attached. But....we may also come to find bigger cycles within that. It's clear there had been a decline above and beyond the typical yearly cycles, but this was obviously met with a huge upswing out performing anything seen in the last 36 years. The planet will have things going on beyond what we measure.

The great barrier reef has probably been around for hundreds of millions of years, with that in mind, there is no reason to exclude the possibility it would see some times of surge and recovery..
 
Last edited:
travellor said:
This thread caught my eye because even though I have an "ignore" on the original poster it's popped up in what's new, and I intend to dive The Great Barrier Reef one day.
Click to expand...
Your post is testament of how things can, against all odds, make a sudden comeback and resurgence just like the great barrier reef. 🙂
 
Amity Island said:
That's the trouble with making predictions without taking into account other possibilities. I think if we had really long term data, we might see the types of cycles from year to year in the graph I attached. But....we may also come to find bigger cycles within that. It's clear there had been a decline above and beyond the typical yearly cycles, but this was obviously met with a huge upswing out performing anything seen in the last 36 years. The planet will have things going on beyond what we measure.

The great barrier reef has probably been around for hundreds of millions of years, with that in mind, there is no reason to exclude the possibility it would see some times of surge and recovery..
Click to expand...

That's the trouble with people on the internet thinking they have as much knowledge as subject experts. The experts wrote a report which you can read that is very clear. If you have other experts who disagree with their conclusions then fine, bring 'em on. In the meantime, I'm going to believe the current scientific consensus.
 
Rob Oldfield said:
Righty ho. What does count as mainstream in your world?
Click to expand...
Don't realy like the term "mainstream" anyway Rob, but virtually all of these organisations have an inbuilt bias, some more than others, here is one that everybody will recognise, CNN. Some say that its impossible to have unbiased news coverage and to some extent this is true. However in my case I am more trusting of Reuters, Associated press and The Financial Times.
 
Rob Oldfield said:
That's the trouble with people on the internet thinking they have as much knowledge as subject experts. The experts wrote a report which you can read that is very clear. If you have other experts who disagree with their conclusions then fine, bring 'em on. In the meantime, I'm going to believe the current scientific consensus.
Click to expand...
Rob, doesn't take an expert to work out if something has been there for 500 million years, that its likely to be there tomorrow and next year and that it's not irreversible. How many climate changes will there have been during 500 million years?

My point is the great barrier reef has seen record growth, do you agree or not agree with that?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top