Hottest Ocean Temperatures in 400 years an 'Existential Threat' To the Great Barrier Reef, Report Finds 69
Ocean temperatures in the Great Barrier Reef are now the hottest in at least 400 years and are an "existential threat" to the planet's unique natural wonder
, according to new scientific research. From a report: Scientists analysed long-lived corals in and around the reef that keep a record of temperature hidden in their skeleton and matched them to modern observations. The research, published in the journal Nature, used climate models to find the extreme temperatures of recent decades could not have happened without the extra greenhouse gases in the atmosphere caused mostly by burning fossil fuels.
The "existential threat" to the reef from the climate crisis was "now realised," the scientists wrote, and without ambitious and rapid cuts to greenhouse gas emissions "we will likely be witness to the demise of one of the Earth's natural wonders." The research comes two weeks after the World Heritage committee decided not to place the reef, which covers an area larger than Italy, on its list of sites "in danger," saying it would consider the question again in 2026.
The "existential threat" to the reef from the climate crisis was "now realised," the scientists wrote, and without ambitious and rapid cuts to greenhouse gas emissions "we will likely be witness to the demise of one of the Earth's natural wonders." The research comes two weeks after the World Heritage committee decided not to place the reef, which covers an area larger than Italy, on its list of sites "in danger," saying it would consider the question again in 2026.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is, we are warming it faster than the ecology is adapting.
400 year margin of error? (Score:2)
One skeptic take on this is
- What is the margin of error in temperature measurements for the 400 year time period?
- Does that margin of error eclipse the 1.7 degee C figure mentioned in the article
>The study found 2024 was the hottest in at least 407 years and 1.73C hotter than the average for years before 1900.
This is all based on models of the coral reef without any quote as to the possible range of errors.
At this point, science reporting, political reporting, financial reporting, social reporting with
Re: (Score:1)
Not just lazy journalism, but pseudo-science. In the last book of Arthur C. Clarke's "Foundation" trilogy, he illustrates the decline of the scientific method by having his scientist character research other scientist's research instead of actually measuring anything on his own. This is close to the state we are in with the climate sciences. Instead of studies based on observations, we get studies based on models.
There are a few exceptions. Several years ago, a study of sediment cores from a lake in Italy t
Re: (Score:3)
Not just lazy journalism, but pseudo-science. In the last book of Arthur C. Clarke's "Foundation" trilogy, he illustrates the decline of the scientific method by having his scientist character research other scientist's research instead of actually measuring anything on his own.
Arthur C. Clarke did not write the Foundation trilogy, and the third book of the Foundation series did not have any such scene.
(not even clear what "the last book" of the Foundation trilogy is, since Asimov continued it much past the first three, and then others continued it yet beyond that.)
Re: (Score:2)
Just imagine how much better the planet would be if we invested even 1/4th of the time and money spent on the climate sciences on remediating pollution instead.
Please cite your source stating that the time and money spent of climate sciences is >4 times greater than the money time and money spent on remediating pollution.
As a starting point, the global catalytic converter market (i.e., devices to remediate pollution) was $49.25 billion in 2021.
Re: (Score:2)
- What is the margin of error in temperature measurements for the 400 year time period?
If you want margins of error, you need to look at the actual science, not the press releases or the popular news stories.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no range of error.
There never was.
There is a range of precession.
And if you have no damn clue what that range is: why make one up?
What are idiots like you asking for a "range of error", when the scientists doing the work have no damn clue what the "range of error" is?
I take a hammer, you put your hand on a table, I hammer your hand a dozen times. After hit number 6 I look away because I can not stand your tears, but you yell every time I hammer again. No idea if I fucking hit you 12 times or only t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This creates niches that other species evolve to fill up.
Over a time frame of a few million years, yes. In the interim, things are disrupted
Evolution has already dealt the cards here.
And a lot of species die when it happens. If that includes species that we rely on for the part of the ecology we depend on, this can have very negative consequences.
Saying "yeah, well over a few million years time frame things will work themselves out" is not very useful for people who don't live on a million year time frame.
Re: (Score:2)
A warmer biosphere means more life overall.
Problem is Davos club and the ignorant woke army they generated wants less life although the ignorant woke army doesn't even understand anything in what's happening right now, they are simply manipulated like puppets without their own knowledge. The leaders are satanic, want to spread division and ultimately want to keep everything for themselves and control everything.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
If warmer temperatures are dangerous to the Great Barrier Reef, how come it's at 36 year highs [youtube.com]?
Haven't the temperatures been warm all along, year after year?
There were other factors besides heat hurting the reef, mostly mitigated I think.
You think or you can prove? Your deeply held beliefs don't count as proof.
Re:Then how is the Great Barrier Reef at new highs (Score:4, Insightful)
Meanwhile, five mass bleaching events [bbc.com] in the past eight years have occurred. Prior to that, only two events had been recorded since 2016.
But yeah, once temperatures rise there is an immediate change in the environment which is why it's all fake because it's impossible for two opposing events to happen at the same time. It's like putting a pot of water on the stovetop, turning the burner to high, then wondering why the water isn't boiling two seconds later.
Re:Then how is the Great Barrier Reef at new highs (Score:4, Interesting)
If warmer temperatures are dangerous to the Great Barrier Reef, how come it's at 36 year highs [youtube.com]?
Well for one it helps to understand if you finish reading the title of the video that you're quoting.
Continued coral recovery leads to 36-year highs across two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef .
Haven't the temperatures been warm all along, year after year?
There were other factors besides heat hurting the reef, mostly mitigated I think.
Well, if you watch just the video you posted you'd learn:
- Some of the stress was caused by starfish outbreaks, that seem to have subsided.
- For most of the reef the heat waves reached the level at which bleaching is expected, but not coral death.
- The recovery was largely led by fast growing corals that are more susceptible to heat waves.
There's more recent info too [aims.gov.au].
Basically the heat waves push some corals to the brink of death, and a few past it. Make the heat waves a bit worse and you'd start expecting those die-offs en-mass.
Re: (Score:3)
For most of the reef the heat waves reached the level at which bleaching is expected, but not coral death.
So why until now has bleaching been equated with death of coral?
Because you were misunderstanding the news articles?
Glad I was able to educate even one person.
I learned about the starfish, and about the fast growing corals are also more susceptible to future heat stress, but I feel like
And 2/3 of something is actually quite a bit if you math.
Not the point.
You left a critical qualifier off your quote.
Basically the heat waves push some corals to the brink of death, and a few past it.
And then those grow and expand, because they have, shall we say, been *selected* to be more heat tolerant.
Did you miss the part where the fast growing corals making up the new growth are less heat tolerant?
Then over time heat waves don't really affect the reef as much as it continues to grow.
It's almost as if evolution is a thing that happens in the wild!
I'm sure the dinosaurs will be thrilled to hear that! Not to mention all the species that have gone extinct over the past couple centuries due to human actions.
Evolution isn
Re:Then how is the Great Barrier Reef at new highs (Score:5, Interesting)
If warmer temperatures are dangerous to the Great Barrier Reef, how come it's at 36 year highs [youtube.com]?
Haven't the temperatures been warm all along, year after year?
There were other factors besides heat hurting the reef, mostly mitigated I think.
There are a *lot* of things affecting the reef. Having spent a few years, and WAY too much money, on studying salt water systems, it doesn't take much change in O2 or CO2 levels to change all sorts of other chemical balances within the water. On the positive, it's a *lot* of water to change, and it's surrounded by some of the greatest buffering material in the world (the sands surrounding the reef are mostly calcium carbonate, which buffers the water against fast chemical balance changes). On the negative, there are enough changes happening in the atmosphere to counteract some of that buffering capacity, at least enough to be measurable.
I know it's fun for some to think every climate story is bullshit, which strikes me as a form of denial, but there have been changes happening on The Great Barrier Reef for decades now. There are huge swaths of it bleaching. There are areas growing faster. There are imbalances developing between the symbiotic species, and some of the cooperative neighbor species because of these changes, which affects the entire biome in the area. It's not as simple as, "Hey, we spotted a place where there was some growth," and then declaring the issue taken care of. Though the erratic changes we're seeing are ripe for finding 'data' that fits whatever agenda, and helps push propaganda promoting the idea that everything's just fine and rosy on the reef, or propaganda saying the reef is definitely dying. Just depends on where you point your instruments and cameras, if you want to push an agenda.
I find it far more fascinating to study the whole thing, which you really can't do by just reading a few articles and then declaring yourself an expert. The little bit of info I spout here is couched completely in my own understanding that I barely have a grasp on it myself, and I've put decades into studying it as a hobbyist. I say hobbyist just so we don't have somebody come in here claiming I said I'm a reef expert. I'm not. An enthusiast, maybe. A fan, definitely. But not an expert.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The recovery was mostly due to fast-growing Acropora corals. This is like taking a flame thrower to a forest, and a year later, after the former forest floor is covered with dandelions, declaring the forest recovered.
Re: (Score:3)
If warmer temperatures are dangerous to the Great Barrier Reef, how come it's at 36 year highs [youtube.com]?
My first rule of the internet is: don't get your science from youtube, Yeah, there are some sites that are accurate, but for the most part, not a good way to get information.
Heat isn't doing it good, but the main threat to the reef continues to be crown-of-thorns starfish.
Here's the temperature of the great barrier reef, for what it's worth: https://www.climate-lab-book.a... [climate-lab-book.ac.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
But most of the underwater surveys were conducted before and during the recent mass bleaching event, one of the most extensive and serious on record. As such, results don’t reflect how many corals survived or died following the bleaching.
But, wait a minute.... (Score:2)
So this is a common right-wing debate tactic (Score:5, Interesting)
I see this with climate change but I also see it with tons and tons of regulatory scenarios especially around things like water and food safety.
It's a variation of the argument that we can do away with the regulations that solve problems because those problems aren't happening anymore kind of sort of ignoring the reason those problems aren't happening is because we passed laws and made regulations to prevent those problems...
The moral of the story is the civilization you enjoy every day is surprisingly fragile and there are a bunch of people out there trying to break it for their own ends.
Re: (Score:2)
These things are complex systems, there are probably complex reasons for the problems w
Re: (Score:2)
The moral of the story is the civilization you enjoy every day is surprisingly fragile and there are a bunch of people out there trying to break it for their own ends.
Pretty much.
Usually but on coral... (Score:2)
Citation: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbn... [nbcnews.com], https://www.newscientist.com/a... [newscientist.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Vaccines are the best example I can make. We don't have polio epidemics anymore for a damned reason. But hey, lets stop things because what does science really know anyway. When you solve a problem so completely it no longer happens, it's much easier for people to fall into observation bias and listen to cranks saying bad things about the good things.
The Reef though? it's dead or will be. Sad, but the oceans are going to be big pools of algae and little else in 50 years. Temps are bad but th
You know how I know you're lying? (Score:2)
We all know better. Full stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Runoff is a significant issue. Rising temps may be a main problem too, but they are certainly not the only one.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, runoff is a significant issue.
I wonder how far the ripples will be felt? (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider: this is not "just another extinction" (and, yes, I've actually heard that insanely ridiculous phrase spill from human lips), this is the extinction of an entire quite large ecosystem within the global ecosphere. This will have ecological ramifications which will reach far beyond the corals themselves and into all of the surrounding ecosystems. Not even going to explore the underlying cause or the other disasters which that cause will produce; this alone is enough to stagger the mind. The "Tree of Life" is starting to look more like a shrub these days.
Waterworld. Snowpiercer. *pfft*, you wish! Think 'Dune' - if we're lucky!.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
One of the things I really hate about listening to old people go on about kids these days is how you freaking old people have literally been in charge for the last 30 or 40 years and you made everything the way it is
Re: (Score:2)
"As long as it doesn't cause problems for billionaires or old farts there isn't a lot we can do about it. For at least the next 6 to 8 years they're the only ones who get much of a say in anything and all the rest of us can do is try and limit their damage and then try and pick up the pieces."
You could always vote for someone younger than 78.
I will. (Score:2)
So that would be Kamala Harris (Score:1)
Not that any of them will admit it. Seriously I challenge anyo
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing (meaningful) we can do now, money notwithstanding. I knew what was going on back in the seventies, I even wished we would collectively do what was right, but I still burned gasoline, natural gas and electricity to my heart's content.
In my own defense, I'll say that I do try to keep my energy use as low as possible these days. Same for my garbage/recycle outputs, both minimized as far as I can these days. Too little too late, but there it is.
Re:I wonder how far the ripples will be felt? (Score:5, Interesting)
Corals have been around for half a billion years.
Nope. Reef-forming organisms became extinct in the Permian–Triassic extinction 250 million years ago. 100% extinct, no survivors.
After several million years, new species colonized the reef-building niche, but the species we call "corals" today are utterly unrelated to the ones we call "coral" before the Permian-Triassic extinction; they don't even form reefs from the same mineral (aragonite instead of calcite).
Re: (Score:2)
>Waterworld. Snowpiercer. *pfft*, you wish! Think 'Dune' - if we're lucky!.
Dune's about 700 million years off. Right now, we're looking at increasingly violent and frequent storms, loss of shoreline (which is where we've built most of our cities), human migration triggering wars, and climate zones shifting faster than evolution can keep up causing mass extinctions.
Life will be less comfortable, we may see a modest population decrease. It's not the end of the world as we know it, but for the last 10K ye
pretty crazy (Score:1, Troll)
Pretty crazy how this specific issue (the barrier reefs) keep being the locus of disaster focus, despite what's often contrary information.
They just recently reported the highest levels of coral cover across two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in over 36 years.
https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/is-the-great-barrier-reef-making-a-comeback/
It's always "climate change" (or global warming, or...), and lately, always CO2 (because it's the only thing they can consistently harass you about, because it's l
Re: (Score:2)
From the Wikipedia article on the Little Ice Age,
"The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals. One began about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, all of which were separated by intervals of slight warming.[7]L
So the warmest since the Little Ice Age is entirely accurate. So how does the present compare to the Medieval Warm Period? And what was the reef doing during that time?
Re: (Score:2)
So how does the present compare to the Medieval Warm Period? And what was the reef doing during that time?
We surpassed the Medieval Warm Period temperatures twenty-five years ago.
Today, a year with MWP temperatures would be considered unusually cold.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty crazy how this specific issue (the barrier reefs) keep being the locus of disaster focus, just because only those suffering mental disease or defect continue to deny that it's happening or that it's important.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty crazy how this specific issue (the barrier reefs) keep being the locus of disaster focus, despite what's often contrary information.
They just recently reported the highest levels of coral cover across two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in over 36 years.
Yeah, but that "recently" was 2 years ago. Last year "recovery has paused" IOW small decrease. And this year?
AIMS’ Annual Summary Report on Coral Reef Condition for 2023/24 (published 7th August 2024) found that hard coral cover has increased in all three regions (Northern, Central and Southern), and is at regional highs in two of the three regions.
But most of the underwater surveys were conducted before and during the recent mass bleaching event, one of the most extensive and serious on record. As such, results don’t reflect how many corals survived or died following the bleaching.
That "recent" is a few months ago (Australian summer).
Scientists don't do surveys so you can ignore the results you don't like.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just the GBR (Score:5, Interesting)
Look up any pictures of reefs from ten years ago to today. It's reefs everywhere. I used to dive regularly all over the place. They've all been devastated.
Re: (Score:2)
Look up any pictures of reefs from ten years ago to today. It's reefs everywhere. I used to dive regularly all over the place. They've all been devastated.
Note quite all. There are still some reefs 'near' Indonesia that are in fantastic shape. We need to try harder if we are going to get ALL of them. Or, we could just wait a few more years...
Re: (Score:2)
When the coral reefs formed during the Cambrian period, which was about 500 million years ago, the ocean's temperature was 38c and the surface was 60c in some areas, and CO2 was over 20 times higher than it is now. This is a rather inconvenient truth.
And an even more inconvenient truth is that all of those reef organisms dies in the end-Permian extinction, 100%, all of them
The organisms we call "coral" today took over the niche, but the rugose and tabulate -- gone.
An Inconvenient truth (Score:2)
The GBR is at the cooler limit of what corals like, ones nearer the equator thrive quite happily in much warmer water, including an enclosed bay in Hawaii.
400 years? Big deal! (Score:1)
Yet it survived the dino comet and deglciation (Score:1, Flamebait)
Corals are several hundred million years old, they survived the comet which killed of the dinosaurs 67 million years ago, they survived the 300-400-500 foot sea level rise 10-15,000 years ago. They've survived continents splitting, merging, and shifting.
And they're going to die off from a 2-3 temperature rise?
Yeah, right. Pull the other one, Wilbur.
Anyone who believes this crap is a negative information voter.
Evidence (Score:2)
(1) Do we really have firm evidence of local ocean temperatures going back 400 years?
(2) What about temperature fluctuations before that? Were there any, how big were they, what effects did they have?
Its yet another recycled piece from the Guardian by the way. Curious that Slashdot never recycles pieces from other UK publications, say the Spectator or the Telegraph. They have lots of pieces on climate and net zero, but they never make a reference. Wonder why.
Yes, we have firm evidence (Score:2)
Of course not from uncalibrated mercury thermometers dipped into the ocean by Captain Cook and associates, but by analyzing isotope distributions directly in the coral.