The Reef Ain't Dead

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

There is a theory[1] that rather than an increase in water temperature causing the bleaching it is low surface temperatures[2] and a consequent decrease in atmospheric water vapour[3] that is causing the little creatures which form and inhabit the near surface coral to leave home.
The theory is that water vapour in the atmosphere tends to filter out and decrease solar radiation and that the poor little beggars are fleeing sun stroke. Could be something in it, we have not had a lot of tropical revolving storms, which are driven by high sea surface temperatures, forming in the Corral Sea during the last few years.

Source?
I was unable to find a source for any such theory[1], in a brief search.
Your facts [2 & 3] also seem to run counter to conventional wisdom.

I found plenty of evidence that the opposite is true. Rising SSTs are, in part, responsible for some coral bleaching.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Source?
I was unable to find a source for any such theory[1], in a brief search.
Your facts [2 & 3] also seem to run counter to conventional wisdom.

I found plenty of evidence that the opposite is true. Rising SSTs are, in part, responsible for some coral bleaching.

Cloudy conditions prevent the sun from heating the surface layer of the ocean, so I guess that makes some basis for "low atmospheric water vapour" theory leading to bleaching.


Although, Ray's probably referencing the effects of the recent Indian Ocean Dipole that contributed to the horrific Aussie bushfires last year. And since bleaching of the GBR hasn't been that big a deal since 2016/17 there's probably a good argument for the theory in there, too.

[Blue Heeler]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Cloudy conditions prevent the sun from heating the surface layer of the ocean, so I guess that makes some basis for "low atmospheric water vapour" theory leading to bleaching.


Although, Ray's probably referencing the effects of the recent Indian Ocean Dipole that contributed to the horrific Aussie bushfires last year. And since bleaching of the GBR hasn't been that big a deal since 2016/17 there's probably a good argument for the theory in there, too.

This is just getting absolutely hilarious. The ole man science department.

[jimbunyard]

There is a theory that rather than an increase in water temperature causing the bleaching it is low surface temperatures and a consequent decrease in atmospheric water vapour that is causing the little creatures which form and inhabit the near surface coral to leave home.

The theory is that water vapour in the atmosphere tends to filter out and decrease solar radiation and that the poor little beggars are fleeing sun stroke. Could be something in it, we have not had a lot of tropical revolving storms, which are driven by high sea surface temperatures, forming in the Corral Sea during the last few years.

Typical nonsense.

According to NOAA, the global atmospheric water vapor content has increased by about 5% since 1970.

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/node/558



Of course, just like anthropogenic climate change, most of the causes of coral bleaching are known (though the mechanisms involved may not be fully understood); thermal stress is only one of them (and it can work in either direction).

As with any dynamic system, the chances of any change being directly related to a single factor decrease inversely with the rise of the complexity of the system. Hence, the idea that the rise in bleaching events we're seeing now have a single cause is simple-minded at best.

There is no doubt though, that much of the bleaching worldwide is caused primarily by prolonged higher water temperatures.


A partial list of bleaching triggers:

Increased water temperature (marine heatwaves, most commonly due to global warming), or reduced water temperatures.
Oxygen starvation caused by an increase in zooplankton levels as a result of overfishing.
Increased solar irradiance (photosynthetically active radiation and ultraviolet light).
Sedimentation (silt runoff).
Bacterial infections.
Changes in salinity.
Herbicides.
Extreme low tide and exposure.
Cyanide fishing.
Elevated sea levels.
Mineral dust from African dust storms caused by drought.
Pollutants such as oxybenzone, butylparaben, octyl methoxycinnamate, or enzacamene: four common sunscreen ingredients that are nonbiodegradable and can wash off of skin.
Ocean acidification due to elevated levels of CO2 caused by air pollution.
Exposure to Oil or other chemical spills.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_...st_of_triggers


"In January 2010, cold water temperatures in the Florida Keys caused a coral bleaching event that resulted in some coral death. Water temperatures dropped 12.06 degrees Fahrenheit lower than the typical temperatures observed at this time of year. Researchers will evaluate if this cold-stress event will make corals more susceptible to disease in the same way that warmer waters impact corals."

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/...al%20bleaching.


"In an article published in Nature’s ISME Journal this year, Dr. David Baker of the University of Hong Kong and colleagues provide evidence to suggest that under warming conditions, zooxanthellae actually become parasitic to corals, leading to their expulsion. This imbalance in the relationship is compounded when the corals are exposed to high nutrient concentrations, mimicking those that occur as a result of runoff and pollution from land."

https://sioweb.ucsd.edu/centers/cmbc...ship-in-coral/

[Blue Heeler]

You will also find lots of sites de-bunking the myth. If it wasn't widespread, there would be no need for such statements as:

"Statement from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority on the true state of The Reef"Dr Russell Reichelt, the Chairman and CEO of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, has hit out at recent claims in the media that the Great Barrier Reef is dead."[/QUOTE]


Reichelt also made this statement

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/news-room/l...aching-surveys

What old mate has neglected to add and also needs to be made clear however is that Dr Russell Reichelt along with the rest of his GBRMPA board members were removed later as a result of, this govt report http://www.environment.gov.au/system...rmpa.pdf#page9

Which found among other things that he and his board had certain “conflicts of interest”......seems they might be rowing the same boat as our favourite OP hero Peter Ridd perhaps?

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by StuM

Try this for starters. I'm sure you can find others if you look.

https://factcheck.afp.com/great-barr...september-2019
"Multiple Sinhala-language Facebook and Twitter posts published in September 2019 have shared an image of a diver swimming above bleached coral alongside claims that the Great Barrier Reef was “officially announced dead today” by scientists"

https://www.zegrahm.com/blog/great-b...est-time-visit
In October of 2016, Outside magazine published a cheeky, hyperbolic piece in which it declared the Great Barrier Reef dead. The cause of death was listed as coral bleaching, which happens when warming oceans cause corals to expel their algae, preventing them from getting the nutrients necessary to survive.
Outlets all around the world picked up the story as undisputed fact, running sensationalistic clickbait headlines such as “Great Barrier Reef Dead at 25 Million” ...

And here's that article:https://www.outsideonline.com/211208...illion-bc-2016


You will also find lots of sites de-bunking the myth. If it wasn't widespread, there would be no need for such statements as:

"Statement from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority on the true state of The Reef"Dr Russell Reichelt, the Chairman and CEO of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, has hit out at recent claims in the media that the Great Barrier Reef is dead."

So, if I am grasping your argument here: The validity of the scientific consensus on extensive reef damage from anthropogenic climate change is false because some media outlets exaggerate the findings? Who cares what "Outside" magazine says? Sinhalese social media? This is rubbish.

[Pete7]

I have cleaned up the thread. Perhaps we could either just let the thread sink down the list or if you do post, please keep it on target.

Pete

[jackdale]

From the 2019 Outlook Report

Findings
The findings of this report indicate that, without
local, national and global action on the greatest
threats, the overall outlook for the Great Barrier
Reef’s ecosystem will remain very poor, with
continuing consequences for its heritage values.

http://elibrary.gbrmpa.gov.au/jspui/...t-Overview.pdf

[StuM]

Originally Posted by lestersails

So, if I am grasping your argument here:

You're not
That post was simply an answer to the question " who is actually claiming that the reef is dead?"

The validity of the scientific consensus on extensive reef damage from anthropogenic climate change is false because ...

I made no statement whatsoever about the "validity of the scientific consensus".

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by StuM

Try this for starters. I'm sure you can find others if you look.

https://factcheck.afp.com/great-barr...september-2019
"Multiple Sinhala-language Facebook and Twitter posts published in September 2019 have shared an image of a diver swimming above bleached coral alongside claims that the Great Barrier Reef was “officially announced dead today” by scientists"

https://www.zegrahm.com/blog/great-b...est-time-visit
In October of 2016, Outside magazine published a cheeky, hyperbolic piece in which it declared the Great Barrier Reef dead. The cause of death was listed as coral bleaching, which happens when warming oceans cause corals to expel their algae, preventing them from getting the nutrients necessary to survive.
Outlets all around the world picked up the story as undisputed fact, running sensationalistic clickbait headlines such as “Great Barrier Reef Dead at 25 Million” ...

And here's that article:https://www.outsideonline.com/211208...illion-bc-2016

You will also find lots of sites de-bunking the myth. If it wasn't widespread, there would be no need for such statements as:

"Statement from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority on the true state of The Reef"Dr Russell Reichelt, the Chairman and CEO of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, has hit out at recent claims in the media that the Great Barrier Reef is dead."

I don't 'do' Twitter or Facebook, and none of the sources that I follow have ever claimed the GBR is 'dead', so I hope you'll forgive me if I didn't know where that claim was coming from.

I've thumbed the occasional issue of Outside on a newsstand or a Dr's office. I wouldn't consider it the last word on ecological science, though they are generally sympathetic to such topics.

So ok, there seems to be agreement here that the GBR isn't dead. So... it's just fine? No action necessary to preserve or restore its health?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I don't 'do' Twitter or Facebook, and none of the sources that I follow have ever claimed the GBR is 'dead', so I hope you'll forgive me if I didn't know where that claim was coming from.

I've thumbed the occasional issue of Outside on a newsstand or a Dr's office. I wouldn't consider it the last word on ecological science, though they are generally sympathetic to such topics.

So ok, there seems to be agreement here that the GBR isn't dead. So... it's just fine? No action necessary to preserve or restore its health?

Pretend that the thread title is "The Reef Ain't Dying" and then tune into the BBC.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Blue Heeler

This is just getting absolutely hilarious. The ole man science department.

Of course. Anyone who has spent time in the tropics with the weather knows that wind would have much more effect on SST's then water vapour ever (or even, if) would.



Having said that, computer models similar to those used to forecast climate warming also predict that increased cloud cover caused by higher atmospheric temperatures will raise SST's in a positive feedback cycle. Fortunately the Earth has seasons, so it has been easy enough to perform real world research that proves this isn't the case.



As for the IOD statement, I probably should have included a sarcasm emoji as it, in fact, caused drought in Australia which presumably lead to lower water vapour in the atmosphere, even over the top of the GBR. My bad.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by Blue Heeler

You will also find lots of sites de-bunking the myth. If it wasn't widespread, there would be no need for such statements as:

"Statement from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority on the true state of The Reef"Dr Russell Reichelt, the Chairman and CEO of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, has hit out at recent claims in the media that the Great Barrier Reef is dead."

Reichelt also made this statement

GBRMPA - Statement on coral bleaching surveys

What old mate has neglected to add and also needs to be made clear however is that Dr Russell Reichelt along with the rest of his GBRMPA board members were removed later as a result of, this govt report http://www.environment.gov.au/system...rmpa.pdf#page9

Which found among other things that he and his board had certain “conflicts of interest”......seems they might be rowing the same boat as our favourite OP hero Peter Ridd perhaps?[/QUOTE]

The report gives a considerable degree of emphasis on one incident and two approvals. The approval of the LNG projects in Gladstone, the approval of the relocation of bottom sediments for purposes of nav channel deepening and the spillage of bottom sediments during a dredging operation.

In order to achieve approval for these industrial projects those implementing the projects were obliged to undertake an extensive process of scientific and engineering studies and numerous battles before courts, commissions, authorities, etc. Apparently this process, involving numerous scientists and applied science practitioners (Engineers) is defective because it approved the projects and we need a new authority with more single agenda members on the board. The cat is belled, the intent is clear and it is to ensure that there are no more of these industrial projects approved in northern Queensland.

The terms "dump","dumping" and "dumped" recur numerous times is the report. Now one would presume that in the tens of millions of dollars spent on the Environmental Impact Studies a few bucks would be thrown towards the scientists who study sediment transport. Since the projects were approved we must then assume that either the scientists were incompetent or corrupt, or the reviewers were careless or corrupt, or the judges or commissioners or authorities were all incompetent or corrupt etc. It is an emotive term which the inclusion of is designed to draw an emotive rather than rational response.

One could analyse and critique and identify numerous indicators of the true purpose of the document and seek out it's history and eventually find that
what really occurred here is that some upper house politicians, with perhaps a leftward tilt, got control of a committee or senate inquiry and were able to commission a report which gave them the answers they were looking for in order to further gum up the approval process for any further industrial projects in northern Queensland. It is happening all the time now in Australia.

Hopefully the Ridd case will proceed to the High Court and we'll see whether it takes a narrow legalistic or a broad support of free speech approach.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Pretend that the thread title is "The Reef Ain't Dying" and then tune into the BBC.

Ok.

...Done. Seeing a lot of concern expressed. But so far, no claim that "the reef is dying". (didn't look for "ain't". Should I?)

Did you have a point to make?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Ok.

...Done. Seeing a lot of concern expressed. But so far, no claim that "the reef is dying". (didn't look for "ain't". Should I?)

Did you have a point to make?

Right up front there are two examples. Stories from 2016 and then again in 2020 that the GBR has lost half its coral since 1995. How long has the reef been around? You don't think a claim that it's lost 50% of its coral in only ~10 years equates with "the reef is dying?" The BBC has been highlighting the dire state of the GBR for years.

You good now, or would you prefer to hash this one out further rather than discuss whether the GBR is in fact dead, dying, in serious trouble, A-OK, or if not what the primary causes may be?