The Great Barrier Reef- resistant coral

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Thanks Gord.


Reefmagnet seems most interested in the future of the GBR as a vehicle for conveying his anti-CC stance, and downunder is just mad at politicians; the reef doesn't even seem to enter into it. Whatever guys; it's your reef.

Like always, you are wrong. I want to see the real issues with the reef focussed on and resolved, rather than it being used as a patsy by those wanting to promote their own vested interests. For example, by Michael "95% of the Great Barrier Reef is dead" Mann.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Reefmagnet was dismissing the reports provided by his government; I acknowledged that he was going to have a better picture than me, I asked FOUR TIMES for some references that he considered more accurate about the health and future of the reef. You saw the non-responses I got. Let's not forget TripAdvisor...

Only Gord shared anything relevant. All I was asking for.

How about you shelve your uncritical defense of any skeptic/denial position, no matter how weak or preposterous, thereby giving your own hypocritical maximus some much needed rest?

You seem hung up on TripAdvisor. In an era when people dial emergency services to report Facebook outages, it's a valid avenue for research. If it helps you sleep better at night, I've rarely used TripAdvisor myself because review sites tend to have a negative bias, but it does provide an overview, over an extended period of time, of tourist locations.

I'll even give you a heads up of what, imo - and it is just my imo -, is the worst place along the reef to visit. Green Island off the coast of Cairns. Go "TripAdvisor" that.

Then compare to heron Island, lizard Island, bait and hardy reefs, Orpheus island, great Keppel Island, Whitehaven Beach, manta ray Bay, blue Pearl Bay and see if the "95%, 50%, 30%" claims stack up.

You don't need to limit yourself to cherry picked reports.

[RaymondR]

Every winter since 2002 I travel north from the southern end of the reef to the north at Cairns and sometimes to Cooktown. In addition I make voyages north and south from Cairns to and around Cape York at the northern end of the reef whilst passing along the north coast of the continent.

On all of these passages inside the reef I get passed by giant bulk carriers and container ships.

From about Townsville and the southern end of the reef off Bundaberg the waters enclosed by reef and mainland are fairly broad and deep, however from about Townsville to the northern end the reef trends much closer to the mainland coast.

Since these very large ships all have mighty internal combustion engine which expel their waste heat into the sea there must be a significant amount of heat introduced into the seas through which they pass with possibly greater effect at the more enclosed narrower northern end where the damage appears more severe..

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by Exile

As a layman, I'm more inclined to believe it's just part of the back & forth that occasions legitimate scientific debate, but in this case I'm sure the court case has personalized it for Ridd (and the university) to some degree.

In general I'm hesitant to ascribe bad intentions or deliberate misconduct to scientists and scientific institutions, and believe (or maybe want to believe) it's more a function of human nature to try and defend one's positions & professional reputation. But there are obviously others who are more inclined to believe conduct is more malicious if not conspiratorial. We all try and reconcile such inconsistencies differently.

Legitimate scientific debate maybe, I’m sure those discussions get just as emotive as this one. They’re only scientists after all! The problem here is when the debate is removed from ‘that’ arena and reframed as dogmatic fact (or fiction) it becomes a problem, without informed critique. And well here we are, The internet!

Whichever camp you’re in, a photo of a reef weather taken yesterday, last week or 30 years ago is not and can never be truly representational of 350,000 square km of coral reef systems. It’s the context it’s presented in that’s important....and the intended reaction in this case I find antagonistic.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Reefmagnet:
I hope you read Aaron MacNeil’s full discussion (“Life and death of the Great Barrier Reef”), and perhaps the paper itself (“Water quality mediates resilience on the Great Barrier Reef”); and would invite your comments (as an informed layperson) on their observations, and conclusions (beyond the storm damage).

I agree with the bulk of that article, but I don't believe coastal water runoff has as much effect as the article implies. See the photo I've added as an example. This was taken in January 2014 out the front of Keppel Bay. Keppel Bay is where the Fitzroy river meets the sea, and is located pretty much smack bang on the latitude of the Tropic of Capricorn. Notice that extensive brown water? That is normal and extends through the entire bay, and a fair way out to see. In January 2014, there were no abnormal weather patterns, no local cyclonic activity before hand and no excessive rain beyond that of a regular wet season. The chart screenshot shows Keppel Bay in relation to Keppel Island (to the north) and the start of the outer reefs (to the east). We were actually heading towards Gladstone, via the Narrows when the photo was taken after spending New Year at Great Keppel Island (which can also be seen in the background). The water at Great Keppel Island was gin clear. The point is that runoff doesn't extend too far into the ocean, even when it leaves the coast in concentrated volume (I think the Fitzroy has the most discharge of all rivers along the coast that fronts the GBR).AFAIK, the predominant tidal and current flows along the GBR, certainly in the South and Central regions is parallel with the coast.


The other photo is of Whitehaven Beach, in the Whitsundays. Known for it's inviting bright turquoise water, the water is that colour because it is always full of sediment due to the tide range along that section of the coast. It is rare to see the bottom in even 5 metres of water in the Whitsundays. Yet the coral and other marine life thrives in the region. But, another ten or twenty nautical miles offshore, and the water is gin clear again.


And there is actually quite bit going on in regards to conservation that doesn't make the news. For commercial operations, there's a bunch of additional rules and regs (e.g. REEFVTS) that apply inside the reef, hence why pollution and reef damage from these sources are virtually non existent. Fishing is heavily regulated, and there are many "green zones" with no fishing allowed and other zones with only limited recreation fishing permitted. Same with runoff, in that most commercial activity is geared towards minimising runoff and other pollutants entering GBRMP waters. Even the storm drain on the road outside my house has a warning that "water flows to ocean" engraved on it. Tourism is one area that could still provide some additional regulation, imo, but considering the size of the reef, the areas affected are relatively minor.

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I want to see the real issues with the reef focussed on and resolved

Which is what in your..humble..opinion? Please tell everyone!

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I agree with the bulk of that article, but I don't believe coastal water runoff has as much effect as the article implies. See the photo I've added as an example. This was taken in January 2014 out the front of Keppel Bay. Keppel Bay is where the Fitzroy river meets the sea, and is located pretty much smack bang on the latitude of the Tropic of Capricorn. Notice that extensive brown water? That is normal and extends through the entire bay, and a fair way out to see. In January 2014, there were no abnormal weather patterns, no local cyclonic activity before hand and no excessive rain beyond that of a regular wet season. The chart screenshot shows Keppel Bay in relation to Keppel Island (to the north) and the start of the outer reefs (to the east). We were actually heading towards Gladstone, via the Narrows when the photo was taken after spending New Year at Great Keppel Island (which can also be seen in the background). The water at Great Keppel Island was gin clear. The point is that runoff doesn't extend too far into the ocean, even when it leaves the coast in concentrated volume (I think the Fitzroy has the most discharge of all rivers along the coast that fronts the GBR).AFAIK, the predominant tidal and current flows along the GBR, certainly in the South and Central regions is parallel with the coast.


The other photo is of Whitehaven Beach, in the Whitsundays. Known for it's inviting bright turquoise water, the water is that colour because it is always full of sediment due to the tide range along that section of the coast. It is rare to see the bottom in even 5 metres of water in the Whitsundays. Yet the coral and other marine life thrives in the region. But, another ten or twenty nautical miles offshore, and the water is gin clear again.


And there is actually quite bit going on in regards to conservation that doesn't make the news. For commercial operations, there's a bunch of additional rules and regs (e.g. REEFVTS) that apply inside the reef, hence why pollution and reef damage from these sources are virtually non existent. Fishing is heavily regulated, and there are many "green zones" with no fishing allowed and other zones with only limited recreation fishing permitted. Same with runoff, in that most commercial activity is geared towards minimising runoff and other pollutants entering GBRMP waters. Even the storm drain on the road outside my house has a warning that "water flows to ocean" engraved on it. Tourism is one area that could still provide some additional regulation, imo, but considering the size of the reef, the areas affected are relatively minor.

And “the reef” was......just fine!!!

Got any pictures of the corals?

Some coral species thrive in turbit nutrient rich waters like that. Stick a mask on and dunk your head in, tell us what you see at ground zero PLEASE!

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Puddleduck

And “the reef” was......just fine!!!

Yes, you know when you cop a kick to the gonads and whilst you're writhing around on the ground - in agony - and someone asks if you're ok and you respond with "I'm fine"?


Same thing. You're hurt, but it aint the death of you.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Puddleduck

Which is what in your..humble..opinion? Please tell everyone!

I already have told everyone. Do try to keep up.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Puddleduck

And “the reef” was......just fine!!!

Got any pictures of the corals?

Plenty to see on the Internet. I recommend TripAdvisor

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by Puddleduck

Legitimate scientific debate maybe, I’m sure those discussions get just as emotive as this one. They’re only scientists after all! The problem here is when the debate is removed from ‘that’ arena and reframed as dogmatic fact (or fiction) it becomes a problem, without informed critique. And well here we are, The internet!

Whichever camp you’re in, a photo of a reef weather taken yesterday, last week or 30 years ago is not and can never be truly representational of 350,000 square km of coral reef systems. It’s the context it’s presented in that’s important....and the intended reaction in this case I find antagonistic.

The politicization of, with commensurate dogmatization of, climate science has reached an extreme in Australia wherein our children are thoroughly indoctrinated in their schools and climate activists have been allowed to encourage and organize street demonstrations during school hours.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Puddleduck

Legitimate scientific debate maybe, I’m sure those discussions get just as emotive as this one. They’re only scientists after all! The problem here is when the debate is removed from ‘that’ arena and reframed as dogmatic fact (or fiction) it becomes a problem, without informed critique. And well here we are, The internet!

Whichever camp you’re in, a photo of a reef weather taken yesterday, last week or 30 years ago is not and can never be truly representational of 350,000 square km of coral reef systems. It’s the context it’s presented in that’s important....and the intended reaction in this case I find antagonistic.

I don't quite understand who or what you're referring to that you find antagonistic. If there are properly credentialed scientists who are considered experts in assessing the health of the GBR, then they're worth listening to. You or others may not agree with their expert opinions, but the disagreement should be for credible scientific reasons and not solely because they conform or don't conform to mainstream thinking. If Professor Ridd's opinion is that the GBR is not in serious jeopardy, then that opinion is only validated by all the attacks on him personally. On the other hand, if his opinion was scientifically suspect, then it would be all too easy to dismiss based on valid scientific reasons. Whenever I read unsubstantiated attacks on a scientist based on anything other than his or her actual science, I am suspicious of motives. But again, I'm not sure what exactly you find antagonistic in this particular discussion.

[SailOar]

Great Barrier Reef authority gives green light to dump dredging sludge

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has approved the dumping of more than 1m tonnes of dredge spoil near the reef, using a loophole in federal laws that were supposed to protect the marine park.....

Acting on concerns from environmentalists, the federal government banned the disposal of dredge spoil near the reef in 2015. But the ban applied only to capital dredging. Maintenance work at ports – designed to remove sediment from shipping lanes as it accumulates – is not subject to it.

On 29 January the marine park authority granted conditional approval for North Queensland Bulk Ports to continue to dump maintenance dredge spoil within the park’s boundaries. The permit was issued just days before extensive flooding hit north and central Queensland, spilling large amounts of sediment into the marine environment.

Waters said the distinction between capital and maintenance dredging made little difference to the reef.....

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Great Barrier Reef authority gives green light to dump dredging sludge

This certainly sounds bad, but I'm never been to this area and wouldn't know the impacts regardless. But why does The Guardian article start off with a photo of a coal terminal south of Mackay, when what is presumably at issue is “[m]aintenance dredging [which] involves relocating sediment which travels along the coast and accumulates over the years where our shipping operation occurs."

I'm not sure why they can't dump further offshore (beyond the reef) with what appears to be naturally built-up sediment (not coal) to keep the port navigable, but the article's only photo appears misleading. What else within the article's content is also misleading? The cited distinction between capital & maintenance spoils perhaps?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

You seem hung up on TripAdvisor.

It was very funny, that's all. The topic is the health and future of the GBR, you apparently do not agree with the pronouncements of the Australian government, and when asked for some sources of what you'd consider better sources of that information, you came back with... TripAdvisor.

Sorry... that's funny.

Later you mentioned that the places that are 'attractive' to snorkel on are not necessarily representative of a healthy reef.... which was kind of my point... so I know you do get that.

Anyway... over it. Carry on.