The Reef Ain't Dead

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

You'd be hard pressed to find anyone that has first hand knowledge of the GBR - and that doesn't have an agenda to pursue - that would agree there is a serious problem.

Is this maybe the difference between science science and Trip Advisor science?

Agenda, agenda, agenda. What is this agenda?

Last month, I was anchored for a few days right where the eye of cyclone Debbie passed over in 2017 and was amazed at the recovery of the reef in this area. I'd say the aquatic areas have recovered much better than the surrounding land areas at this point.

Good to hear. Anyway, it's not all bad news for coral, worldwide.

[Reefmagnet]

Education in australia earns more export $$$ than tourism. Tertiary educational institutions are a big business domestically as well. Riding the climate change gravy train is great for publicity.

So there's that agenda, I guess.

And why any logically thinking person would not wonder why 50% of the reef is supposedly dead yet tourists locations are untouched and pristine is beyond me.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

..........

And why any logically thinking person would not wonder why 50% of the reef is supposedly dead yet tourists locations are untouched and pristine is beyond me.

The sunscreen products as used by the tourists are left floating on the water and these products prevents the coral below from bleaching.

Can I get a grant to study this hypothesis please? I will need to study it on-site!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

. . .

And why any logically thinking person would not wonder why 50% of the reef is supposedly dead yet tourists locations are untouched and pristine is beyond me.

Oh, this one's easy. They have no first-hand knowledge, often live on the other side of the planet, rely on the same sources of information that consistently repeat the same theme, rarely associate let alone engage with people who challenge their assumptions, and probably get a thrill down their leg when they encounter someone they can call a "denier" or worse (although never to the persons face, of course). Iow, whether or not the reef is actually 50% dead is not nearly as interesting or compelling.

[jimbunyard]

Yep, absolutely sure the 'tourist only' sections are determined specifically to include dead or dying reefs....

Most reefs used for tourism aren’t severely affected

True. Most recognised tourism areas had no, negligible or moderate bleaching. High Standard Tourism operations contribute regularly into the Eye on the Reef system that provides the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority with excellent real-time awareness of Reef health at high value tourism sites.

GBRMPA - Coral bleaching 101

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Yep, absolutely sure the 'tourist only' sections are determined specifically to include dead or dying reefs....

Most reefs used for tourism aren’t severely affected

True. Most recognised tourism areas had no, negligible or moderate bleaching. High Standard Tourism operations contribute regularly into the Eye on the Reef system that provides the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority with excellent real-time awareness of Reef health at high value tourism sites.

GBRMPA - Coral bleaching 101

"Eye On The Reef" is an observation and reporting program. One would assume that if there was a problem, this would be revealed quick smart. No one is curating the reef after hours in high traffic tourism areas.



The contribution made by tourism operators for the most part is to ensure tourists don't poop or throw rubbish in the water, don't damage the coral as they swim around it and that their boats and infrastructure don't leak fluids overboard or otherwise damage the reef through groundings or anchoring.


Of course the other elephant in the room for the "50% dead" crowd is that there's quite possibly substantially more locals, commercial fisherman and, God forbid, actual cruisers that are visiting non "tourism areas" than tourist day visitor numbers to specific sites. If there was a genuine problem to the extent of the 50% fantasy, it would be well and truly evident.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Wotname

The sunscreen products as used by the tourists are left floating on the water and these products prevents the coral below from bleaching.

Can I get a grant to study this hypothesis please? I will need to study it on-site!

Your SOL there, Wottie.


Sunscreens are coral killers.

When you swim with sunscreen on, chemicals like oxybenzone can seep into the water, where they're absorbed by corals. These substances contain nanoparticles that can disrupt coral's reproduction and growth cycles, ultimately leading to bleaching

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Your SOL there, Wottie.


Sunscreens are coral killers.

The on ground evidence sez otherwise

Good scientist Wottie challenges the status quo but ATM, he needs funding to proceed...

And while he is at it, let's go looking for the dead 50% - two birds for one stone.

Maybe worthy of gofundme. Are the borders open????? Probably will be by the time I get funding....

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Wotname

The on ground evidence sez otherwise

Good scientist Wottie challenges the status quo but ATM, he needs funding to proceed...

And while he is at it, let's go looking for the dead 50% - two birds for one stone.

Maybe worthy of gofundme. Are the borders open????? Probably will be by the time I get funding....

Mate, leave it too long and the only thing you'll be studying will be COTS covered rubble according to the pundits. Perhaps if you were to include a photo of a cute kitten and a BS sob story on your GFM page, you'd be ready to roll by Friday.


And don't worry about borders. Just invest a share of your donations to hire a superyacht to get you between the tweed and the GC seaway. Slap a "Tender to..." sticker on the Swanson and tow it behind. Get's you in like Flynn. Too easy.

[Budawang]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

.
And why any logically thinking person would not wonder why 50% of the reef is supposedly dead yet tourists locations are untouched and pristine is beyond me.

Well I guess the tourism operators choose the best locations. Anyway, most tourists don't have anything to compare the sites they visit with.

Having cruised up the Queensland coast last year, I can say from first hand experience that a lot of the coral isn't looking very good.

[Budawang]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Last month, I was anchored for a few days right where the eye of cyclone Debbie passed over in 2017 and was amazed at the recovery of the reef in this area. I'd say the aquatic areas have recovered much better than the surrounding land areas at this point.

What I noticed in the Whitsundays is that it's mostly soft coral that's growing back. Very little hard coral. The reefs look completely different to those prior to Debbie.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

And why any logically thinking person would not wonder why 50% of the reef is supposedly dead yet tourists locations are untouched and pristine is beyond me.

Ah, Trip Advisor science it is, then...

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Ah, Trip Advisor science it is, then...

Your right. I've decided it's best to give up on Tripadvisor. I've opted to become a self appointed expert in the effects of climate change on Lake Ontario's water levels. Sure, I know it's a half a world away, but I've already heavily invested into Facebook and Guardian research on the topic so there's that.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Budawang

Well I guess the tourism operators choose the best locations. Anyway, most tourists don't have anything to compare the sites they visit with.

Having cruised up the Queensland coast last year, I can say from first hand experience that a lot of the coral isn't looking very good.

Was it 50%? No one's arguing that there isn't some damage.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Budawang

What I noticed in the Whitsundays is that it's mostly soft coral that's growing back. Very little hard coral. The reefs look completely different to those prior to Debbie.

So you're agreeing with me that the coral is growing back? How'd the vegetation on the islands compare?