The Great Barrier Reef- resistant coral

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

Muddying the water is an industry on it's own, it all reminds me of the Wag The Dog movie and I'm never convinced the "facts" are believable, both sides manipulate them to their advantage and can even turn them around 180°. Even the big players, the ones that should be 100% straight with us don't always play fair.

I believe that for some reason in human nature we like drama more than the ordinary, and we seem more likely to find in favour of bad news, perhaps we are all bored and looking for a cause. Doesn't mean it's wrong or right, just seems to me its an easy sell for the media and anyone who sees profit in it so I am usually more sceptical of bad news.

Michael Mann exclaimed "95% of the Great Barrier Reef is Dead". No doubt whilst trying to flog his latest book.



The reality is that that figure was closer to 5%, and significantly way less if corals growing below 2m LAT depth were included. It should also be noted that the biggest contributors to the recent damage were cyclones and a Crown of Thorns plague, neither of which can be directly attributable to existing climate change .

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by StuM

You might care to observe that ReefMagnet is Mackay based. Take a look at how many GBR coral fringed islands, shoals and reefs are within a few hours sail for him

I know! I thought it was a trick question.

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by Dave_S View Post
Muddying the water is an industry on it's own, it all reminds me of the Wag The Dog movie and I'm never convinced the "facts" are believable, both sides manipulate them to their advantage and can even turn them around 180°. Even the big players, the ones that should be 100% straight with us don't always play fair.

I believe that for some reason in human nature we like drama more than the ordinary, and we seem more likely to find in favour of bad news, perhaps we are all bored and looking for a cause. Doesn't mean it's wrong or right, just seems to me its an easy sell for the media and anyone who sees profit in it so I am usually more sceptical of bad news.

100% agree with this but surely the more we really understand about something, the less susceptible we are to being manipulated for somebody else’s gains?

I’m fascinated by coral and reefs because they are extra ordinary

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

That article above certainly agrees with my direct observations.

My original question was really only about what your direct observations were and where about exactly, that’s all

[Koz1]

Here is a similar question, and I'm just going to leave this out there.

We know that the temperature of N. America was once much hotter because we used to have monkeys here. The climate cooled and the monkeys could not survive so they either died off, or moved south, or a combination of both. Either way, we don't have native monkeys in N. America today.

At the time, which was likely hundreds of thousands of years ago, should we have, at the time if humans were alive and had the technology, genetically altered the monkeys to be able to survive here.

It is a difficult question to be sure, but shouldn't the same answer apply to coral???

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I suspect his 35 years at JCU (a university that specialises in marine studies with campuses in coastal regions adjacent to the GBR) is the clue. The guy apparently knows what he's talking about when it comes to the GBR and probably blew his stack when the bean counters and a bunch of johnny-come-latelys (usually speaking in foreign accents) hopped on the CC gravy train and pervaded the system.

Wow. You even managed to work xenophobia into that CC conspiracy.

But seriously... you're "on the ground" so to speak. When I try to look past the publications and their biases (alleged or otherwise), I see this from the government :

...
For the first time in the history of the monitoring program, trends in average hard coral cover on reefs in all three regions show a steep decline.

• Northern region: as of early 2017, average coral cover declined to approximately 10 per cent (less than half of what it was in 2013) as a result of two severe tropical cyclones and the 2016 mass coral bleaching event. Survey results do not yet take into account the impacts of the 2017 bleaching event. These locations are scheduled for re-survey in 2018-19.

• Central region: as of May 2018, average coral cover had declined from 22 per cent in 2016 to 14 per cent in 2018 as a result of mass coral bleaching and crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks.

• Southern region: as of May 2018, average coral cover had declined for the first time in seven years, dropping from 33 per cent in 2017 to 25 per cent in 2018 as a result of crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks. AIMS Long-term Monitoring Program survey results do not yet take into account the impacts of cyclone Debbie in the Whitsundays. These locations are scheduled for re-survey in 2018-19.

So... is that report mainly accurate, or are your observations at odds with it? Where should we look for better info on the overall condition of the GBR?

[Puddleduck]

From Peter Ridds FB post

For example, the 2016 bleaching event supposedly killed either 95%, 50% or 30% of the reef depending upon which headline and scientist you want to believe.

Suppose all those numbers are right, it just depends on your sample method, then apply it to your chosen belief and Bingo you’ve got facts! Yes both ‘sides’ are sometimes guilty. What’s the motivation and how does each side benefit? jobs, funding, profit, expansion who knows....but know your subject and your less likely to be manipulated by the headlines from either ‘side’

Read between the lines and pretty much all studies point to the same thing. Out of some 2500 coral species some will adapt to warmer temperatures, most wont.

The corals most likely to become extinct (branching and table sp.) provide habitats for the majority of reef dwelling creatures. These corals go and so do all the animals associated with them.

Massive boulder type corals in deeper water will dominate and spread.

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by Koz1

At the time, which was likely hundreds of thousands of years ago, should we have, at the time if humans were alive and had the technology, genetically altered the monkeys to be able to survive here.

It is a difficult question to be sure, but shouldn't the same answer apply to coral???

If the monkeys directly benefit the humans then it’s a yes from me.

Im Ok (ish) with GM crops

The worlds Coral reefs benefit humans in lots of way. I’d like to keep those benefits

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Wow. You even managed to work xenophobia into that CC conspiracy.

But seriously... you're "on the ground" so to speak. When I try to look past the publications and their biases (alleged or otherwise), I see this from the government :


So... is that report mainly accurate, or are your observations at odds with it? Where should we look for better info on the overall condition of the GBR?

You obviously missed the multiple references to crown of thorns starfish. And yes it is an issue but the outbreaks have occurred in the past too which suggests that CC isn't the driver. It is more likely overfishing and nutrient run off related.


Annual GBR tourism numbers and TripAdvisor should provide a clearer indication of the reef's condition.

[Alan Mighty]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

You obviously missed the multiple references to crown of thorns starfish. And yes it is an issue but the outbreaks have occurred in the past too which suggests that CC isn't the driver. It is more likely overfishing and nutrient run off related.

That recently published paper by McNeill et al. suggests you're spot on with regard to water quality (i.e. runoff - turbidity and nutrients). So that correlates with rain. See the abstract at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-019-0832-3

And then the question you're facing is whether anomalous rainfall such as that experienced in the band from Townsville west early this year was just another part of the climate change with which we're living.

[SailOar]

Understanding the drivers of coral reef recovery: A long-term study in the Pacific

New research on reef recovery shows corals need nine to 12 years to recover following large disturbance events such as mass bleaching and storm damage. ....

"Coral reefs are declining worldwide as a direct result of human influences, but unlike many reefs around the world, Palau's reefs have been fortunate to experience over 14 years free from mass disturbance," said Ms Gouezo, who originates from France.

"After nine to 12 years we could even detect stability in coral-dominated states in certain habitats, something that is rare to document as the frequency of disturbances increases due to global climate change.

"Overall, fast coral recovery was observed at reefs that had good larval supply and connectivity, high survivorship of young corals, low coverage of fleshy algae, and high density of parrotfish. This study provides invaluable information to improve local management as the uncertainty of natural disturbance patterns increases.".......

Ms Gouezo said while Palau was quite isolated in the Pacific and was a different system to the Great Barrier Reef, her research showed that high survivorship of young corals was imperative to recover damaged reef systems. She said her research, if applied to an Australian context, showed that maximizing the supply of coral larvae and connectivity through projects such as Professor Harrison's larval restoration on reefs in the Great Barrier Reef and in the Philippines were definitely a good option to help boost reef recovery in an area that had suffered multiple bleaching events and other disturbances......

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Whoa! Before shooting the messenger, you should actually read the article. It's obvious you didn't, because the "honest" politician is quoting Peter Ridd; A scientist who values truth in science over paychecks.

The opposite is demonstrated by Ridd's actions, and his associations with the well known, industry-funded denial campaigners and scientists-for-hire.

Unlike Spencer, who apparently believes at least some of his mistaken rhetoric (as shown by his [mostly] bizarre personal website), Ridd, as with many others profiting from the denial cash-cow (Nova, Watts, Curry, et al.) seem clearly to have come to the conclusion that the monetary benefits derived from capitalistic endeavors greatly outweigh the monetary benefits derived from pure scientific or academic research.

'Follow the money' indeed...


"Peter Ridd is a former professor at James Cook University in Australia. According to his profile at JCU, Ridd was a geophysicist with interests in “coastal oceanography, the effects of sediments on coral reefs, instrument development, geophysical sensing of the earth, past and future climates, atmospheric modelling.” Ridd was fired from James Cook University in May 2018 for allegedly breaching his employment's code of conduct. [26]


“Peter Ridd raises almost all of his research funds from the profits of consultancy work which is usually associated with monitoring of marine dredging operation,”

his profile noted. The Marine Geophysics Laboratory at JCU has been involved in consulting for a range of coal terminal projects in 2012, funds which go to PhD scholarship and the staff of the MGL. [3], [4]

Ridd has consistently questioned the science suggesting the risks posed by climate change and other human activities to the Great Barrier Reef.

In January 2018, Ridd launched the website ”Great Barrier Reef Science Commentary” where he has covered a legal case between himself and James Cook University. Ridd has claimed the University is trying to silence him through a censure and then a disciplinary allegation of serious misconduct related to disparaging comments about two institutions linked to JCU - the Australian Institute of marine science and the Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies.

Ridd has gained the support of many individuals and groups who question the impact of man-made climate change, including the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), which has helped Ridd to gather funds to cover legal costs in the case he filed against JCU. [5]

“Thanks to lots of people including Anthony Watts, Jennifer Marohasy, Jo Nova, Benny Peiser (GWPF), Willie Soon for spreading the word. Also a huge thanks to the IPA for helping with the organisation,” Ridd said in his GoFundMe campaign, which raised $99,322 in just 49 hours. [6]

Ridd was featured in the IPA publication “Climate Change: The Facts 2017” in which he wrote that coral is the “least endangered of any ecosystem to future climate change.” [7] Ridd has been a director of the Australian Environment Foundation, which promotes the rejection of human-caused climate change, since 2005."

"May 2, 2018

Ridd was fired from James Cook University for breaching his employment's code of conduct. According to a statement from Professor Iain Gordon, Deputy Vice Chancellor, Division of Tropical Environments and Societies at JCU: [26], [27]

“Professor Ridd has on numerous occasions and in numerous ways seriously and repeatedly breached the Code of Conduct – his employment has been terminated on this basis. To suggest otherwise is simply wrong,” the statement reads. [27]

On his website, where he has repeatedly published confidential legal documents about the proceedings, Ridd claimed “His employment has been terminated because he dared to tell the truth.” He also re-opened a GoFundme campaign to pay for legal bills estimated at $260,000 (his prior campaign raised nearly $100,000). As of late May, the campaign had already reached its $260,000 goal. [28]

While Ridd claimed “JCU appears to be willing to spend their near unlimited legal resources fighting me,” the university has pointed out that it was Ridd who commenced legal action. [26]

Following Ridd's firing, conservative websites and think tanks have come to his defense and urged readers to visit his crowdfunding page. Ridd and supporting groups have consistently reframed the case as being about academic freedom, free speech, and scientific integrity. The University's statement itself counters these claims: [26], [27]

“The University has not objected to Professor Ridd's right to comment on quality assurance.
However, the University has objected to the manner in which he has done this. He has sensationalised his comments to attract attention, has criticised and denigrated published work, and has demonstrated a lack of respect for his colleagues and institutions in doing so. Academic rebuttal of his scientific views on the reef has been separately published.”

The UK's Global Warming Policy Forum, an extension of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, reposted an article from The Australian and linked to Ridd’s website. Climate change denial journalis James Delingpole reinforced Ridd's claim that he was fired for “telling the truth.” In the U.S., the Heartland Institute described Ridd's firing as “an international scandal & part of the fight for global free speech,” and linked to an article by climate change denial blogger Anthony Watts. [29]

The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) already donated at least $6,000 towards Ridd's legal fees, helped coordinate his fundraising, and promoted his cause on social media."

[RaymondR]

I hope Mr Ridd wins his case for no other reason than the AGM zealots persistent use of the terms "denier" and "denial" in their rabid attempts to couple AGM sceptics with holocaust deniers.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

I hope Mr Ridd wins his case for no other reason than the AGM zealots persistent use of the terms "denier" and "denial" in their rabid attempts to couple AGM sceptics with holocaust deniers.

Au contraire, Holocaust deniers should thank AGW deniers for supplanting them in the vernacular.

Words have meanings. Where one chooses to attach associations to them is up to the individual, and is often a direct indication of motive.

AGW 'skeptics' are deniers by definition, in the modern English usage of the word, whether you like it or not.

Scientists, who hold the strongest claim to the word, should unite to protest the usurpation and bastardization of 'skeptic' by the pseudo-skeptics, many who inhabit the AGW-conspiracy universe (along with flat-earthers, creationists, moon landing deniers, etc...)


de·ni·er1
/dəˈnīər/
noun
noun: denier; plural noun: deniers

1. a person who denies something.
   "a prominent denier of global warming"
   
   
   
   

de·ni·al
/dəˈnīəl/
noun
noun: denial

1. the action of declaring something to be untrue.
   "she shook her head in denial"
   
   
   
   

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

You obviously missed the multiple references to crown of thorns starfish. And yes it is an issue but the outbreaks have occurred in the past too which suggests that CC isn't the driver. It is more likely overfishing and nutrient run off related.

In my comment, I didn't ask or imply that it was CC, I was merely asking for feedback from you on what is happening, and what sources of info on the health of the GBR you consider to be accurate.

Since the quote I posted mentioned the starfish twice, no I don't think it's obvious that I missed that.

Like CC, overfishing and nutrient runoff are problems created by us. Also like CC, nobody's gonna do much about them, it seems.

Annual GBR tourism numbers and TripAdvisor should provide a clearer indication of the reef's condition.

Seriously?

There's a nice resort in Oaxaca, on the Pacific side of Mexico, which has a small coral reef that's all of 150 feet from the beach. When I first saw it, I wasn't expecting much, but no it was a busy little reef, and even with all the people traffic and even punters standing on it occasionally, it still had maybe 30 to 40% active (living) area, and lots of pretty fishies. We snorkelled on it every day.

But I wouldn't take that to mean that the whole Pacific coast of Mexico was in great shape.

The GBR could be 99% toast, but you could still find more than enough for the day-trippers to snorkel on...