Great Barrier Reef destroyed by climate... or not.

[Flying Binghi]

I'm hearing from all sorts of alarmist sources that anything from 25% to 50% of the Australian Great Barrier reef (GBR) has been destroyed by global warming. Apparently it is all bleached..

 

I've flown up the coast over the GBR at low level many times over the last quarter century or so and never seen any coral bleaching. I'm wondering if somebody has seen this 'bleaching' and can give me some GPS co-ordinates so I can go and have a look-see ?

 

.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Give it a rest

 

 

[Flying Binghi]

Give it a rest

What! yer not worried about the reef ?

Many aviation jobs are based on reef tourism. Just the negative media reporting of 'bleaching' has an effect...

 

"...recent experience in Australia had shown that negative commentary about the status of World Heritage properties impacted on tourism..."

 

Climate change, tourism and the Great Barrier Reef: what we know

 

Personally, I'd like to go and have a look-see at this 'bleaching'. Plenty of people fly their aircraft over the reef every day. Somebody gotta have some co-ordinates for a bleached patch of reef ?

 

.

 

 

[kasper]

Hi flying.

 

You can have your opinions and as the rules of this forum do not allow atracking the person but only the subject I’ll define the subject of this thread as not the barrier reef but your belief that if you haven’t seen it it doesn’t exist.

 

You have a great friend in the president of the USA. And I will now give any and all of your posts as much credence as I give his utterings.

 

Cheers.

 

 

[octave]

Coral Bleaching Map – ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies

[Nobody]

Flying Binghi, the alarmist sources are probably just being alarmist. That doesn't mean that there isn't a serious issue that needs worthy consideration. The GBRMPA did a report on the bleaching event that occurred during 2016. That report is available here:

 

http://elibrary.gbrmpa.gov.au/jspui/bitstream/11017/3206/1/Final-report-2016-coral-bleaching-GBR.pdf

 

A few key observations:

 

• Page 34 lists by name the reefs that were sampled to give the results in the report. While there arn't detailed latitude and longitude coordinates the reef manes are generally given.
   
   
   
  
• Appendix B indicates through underwater time series photographs what bleaching looks like, with imaging showing before, during and after an event. Picking the difference while flying 1000 feet above might be difficult. It is much more accurate to take aerial photos and review after in an office and cross calibrate those photos with field sampling.
   
   
   
  
• The map on page 20 shows that the southern part of the reef was not affected as significantly as the northern part during that particular event. South of Cairns there was only local areas where the coral loss was graded worse than "medium" and all the areas graded "extreme" are north of cooktown.
   
   
   
  
• Pages 18 and 21 discuss the percentages of the "shallow water" coral that experienced mortality due to bleaching. In June 2016 it was 22% but increased to 29% but November 2016.
   
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

[Flying Binghi]

Aparently you can identify coral bleaching from the air...

 

"...In early 2016 the Great barrier Reef turned white. Professor Terry Hughes, head of the multi-institutional National Coral Bleaching Taskforce, spent eight days flying over the reef, ranking the coral from unaffected to varying levels of bleached..." via Quaterly Essay, page 4.

 

So, they already got a TASK FORCE ready to rock and roll before the 'event'... Hmmm, of course they gotta find a disaster...

 

Though, we have a read of a 1952 news paper report and we find it has all happened before...

 

"...Recent ALARMING REPORTS that coral had died on the Low Isles Reef had prompted the Great Barrier Reef Committee, Brisbane, to organise the expedition..."

 

Party may solve mystery of two dying coral isles - The Courier-Mail (Brisbane, Qld. : 1933 - 1954) - 28 Oct 1952

 

Oh, Dear. "Alarming reports" of coral bleaching way back in 1952. I wonder if they had an aircraft to play with..

 

.

 

 

[octave]

FB did you look at the link I posted? Also the pictures and video at different locations? If you explore that web site there are links to many scientific studies that you can read. The fact that there were concerns as far back as 1952 does not mean that the problem is non existent. Coral has always suffered from bleaching and has also recovered but it is a matter of the rate of damage.

 

I feel much more confident in the findings of hundreds of peer reviewed scientific papers where the methodology and raw data are available to be scrutinised by anyone rather than what someone "reckons"

 

 

[Jaba-who]

I have no idea who's right and who's alarmist and who's not because the facts are distorted by self serving parties from "both sides".

 

I'm living in the middle of all the Great Barrier Reef stuff. it's in the local media all the time and as one who has an interest and who sees the media stuff all the time I am confused as to what the real picture is.

 

And despite my conservationist side leanings I am a scientist and am highly qualified to read scientific literature and I have to admit that the least trustworthy descriptions have come from the side of the conservationist and GRMPA.

 

But of course it's not always just the original author to blame. It's often a slightly selective statement that's first released then it's given an even bigger slant by the first media outlet and then further slanted by the next outlet till very soon a near factual statement is converted to a completely wrong one.

 

As examples:

 

Going back a couple of years the initial statement and study was that for a singular reef to be considered positive for bleaching it only had to have some visible bleaching. So a reef with say 5 % of its area bleached was positive even if that bleaching only counted for a few square metres.

 

That reef ( being labelled bleached) then was added to the total number of bleach positive reefs and the statement made that x% of the entire barrier reef is bleached.

 

When what should have been said was x% of the reefs show y% or more % bleaching. The first statement gave the impression far more was bleached than actually was.

 

The media then take this and run with as if every reef affected was 100% bleached.

 

This then gives the opposition ammunition to denigrate the study and the outcome and the proposed strategy to fix the problem. Then the opposition gets credence and noises made saying nothing needs be done.

 

But then there are elements on the opposite side of the fence that then write endless tirades in the local media railing against what is undeniable fact and making statements that reefs are really not affected at all when clearly there is some bleaching.

 

So all in all, it's really hard for anyone who is not actually there to know what the real situation is. There are unfortunately so many vested interested and people whose ongoing livelihoods are dependant on their particular agenda being given credence.

 

 

[Flying Binghi]

FB did you look at the link I posted? Also the pictures and video at different locations? If you explore that web site there are links to many scientific studies that you can read. The fact that there were concerns as far back as 1952 does not mean that the problem is non existent. Coral has always suffered from bleaching and has also recovered but it is a matter of the rate of damage.I feel much more confident in the findings of hundreds of peer reviewed scientific papers where the methodology and raw data are available to be scrutinised by anyone rather than what someone "reckons"

No argument from me that coral has suffered die back (alarmist term - bleaching) in the past. It is fairly obvious to any one that any animal/plant that lives in the harsh highly volatile narrow world that is the interface between the ocean and the sky will have a high rate of attrition. Depending on the time of year, the cycle of the pacific east west slop (cyclic sea level variance), and when were the last cyclone, etc, you would expect to find in any given acre of reef every thing from actively growing through sickly, to dead (bleached) coral.

The Great Barrier Reef is not a well tended back yard garden where only perfection can be found. The Great Barrier Reef is more like the garden you find where the local druggies are living - unkempt, suffering the effects of random destruction, half the plants are dead, and some few plants are thriving.

 

"it is a matter of the rate of damage" "damage" that reads fairly alarmist. Things do die you know. The reef is not some movie fairy tale world where nothing ever dies and all the green fairys live in harmony. As to "rate" - to what do you compare. Back in 1952 the then scientists claimed the Low Isles mass coral deaths were indicative of the entire Great Barrier Reef. So, what is this "rate" ?

 

.

 

 

[APenNameAndThatA]

I was in Fiji about a year ago and the bit of the reef that I saw was was khaki coloured. I'm no expert, but apparently there is more bleaching north because it is warmer.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

FB - it's probably better no to interchangeably use the terms bleaching and die or die-back.

 

"Bleaching" is a specific type of event and the coral is NOT dead when it bleached. It's alive but stressed and if the cause is removed it may become healthy again. But this takes time. In the old days stressor events supposedly happened infrequently enough that the coral had a chance to unbleach and get going again.

 

After that they die and then they turn to the white skeletal coral that has no living polyps on it and can't regrow except by slow recolonisation from distant sites, if at all.

 

Healthy coral, despite being smashed up in cyclones etc can cope and grow back.

 

Healthy coral is very resilient. The current concern is rate of stressor events is accelerating. The reef barely starts to recover when it's hit by another stressor event. Each time the coral is starting off further behind the eight ball.

 

With bleaching - What happens is coral ( the soft fleshy live polyps - not just the hard mineralised skeleton) - is naturally white but it takes into its tissues coloured algae with different corals preferring different algae. Hence particular corals/ species being particular colours. Healthy coral and algae get along fine and the algae provide nutrients for the coral.

 

Particular stressors cause the coral to eject the algae and go back to white. Trouble is bleached coral can't make some of those required nutrients and if the stressed coral does settle down and reabsorb the algae it will eventually die.

 

Many corals bleach with specific stressors. Temperature being one. Thus all other things being equal bleaching can be a marker of single stressor events. But they can also be made worse for multiple stressors.

 

The biggest bad thing everyone is worried about is a constant background of microstress ( the increased carbon dioxide level which raises the acidity just a little but enough to provide a background stressor. Then add to that frequent temperature stressors associated with global warming. So the corals eject the algae but don't have the environment that encourages rapid return to health.

 

Then before they can get their act together another hot day comes along and they eject more algae if they can or just get knocked back a bit more.

 

But as I said that's background biology. The cause of the temps, whether they are as much as they say and are enough to actually cause the problem. Whether there is as much problem as they say? I don't know.

 

The truth is hard to find.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

I was in Fiji about a year ago and the bit of the reef that I saw was was khaki coloured. I'm no expert, but apparently there is more bleaching north because it is warmer.

Yeah. That’s usually ( at least here) after the bleaching it dies then the dead skeletal coral gets a layer of algae of a different sort on it. That’s the slimy greenish coloured stuff. Not the same type as the coloured stuff that gets taken into the coral.That then leads to a different population of grazing fish who like slime algae. And it doesn’t support as many fish so the whole ecosystem changes.

 

 

[Flying Binghi]

FB - it's probably better not to interchangeably use the terms bleaching and die or die-back."Bleaching" is a specific type of event and the coral is NOT dead when it bleached. It's alive but stressed and if the cause is removed it may become healthy again. But this takes time. In the old days stressor events supposedly happened infrequently enough that the coral had a chance to unbleach and get going again.

After that they die and then they turn to the white skeletal coral that has no living polyps on it and can't regrow except by slow recolonisation from distant sites, if at all...

Yeah... nice explanation for an ideal world where people actually have a bit of 'corporate knowledge' of past events... though, how many reading this forum knew of the 1952 reef scare study ?

Re bleaching or die-back - Lets go a couple more sentences past the last quote I referenced from Professor Terry Hughes, the head of the bleaching 'Task Force'...

 

"...It usually takes a few months to recover or die from a bleaching event, but this time, in the northern part, much of the coral died instantly. It was fried. Over 65 per cent of the northern reef is dead..." (via Quarterly Essay QE66 2017, page 4)

 

So, the implication is bleaching is death.

 

"In the old days stressor events supposedly happened infrequently..." How do we know there is a difference between today's 'events' and past events ?

 

.

 

 

[winsor68]

I'm hearing from all sorts of alarmist sources that anything from 25% to 50% of the Australian Great Barrier reef (GBR) has been destroyed by global warming. Apparently it is all bleached..I've flown up the coast over the GBR at low level many times over the last quarter century or so and never seen any coral bleaching. I'm wondering if somebody has seen this 'bleaching' and can give me some GPS co-ordinates so I can go and have a look-see ?

.

On yer bike Mr Ashby.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Yeah... nice explanation for an ideal world where people actually have a bit of 'corporate knowledge' of past events... though, how many reading this forum knew of the 1952 reef scare study ?Re bleaching or die-back - Lets go a couple more sentences past the last quote I referenced from Professor Terry Hughes, the head of the bleaching 'Task Force'...

"...It usually takes a few months to recover or die from a bleaching event, but this time, in the northern part, much of the coral died instantly. It was fried. Over 65 per cent of the northern reef is dead..." (via Quarterly Essay QE66 2017, page 4)

 

So, the implication is bleaching is death.

 

"In the old days stressor events supposedly happened infrequently..." How do we know there is a difference between today's 'events' and past events ?

 

.

I have been to a lecture where the local guru here at the James Cook Uni gave a talk about some of this stuff. Might even have been the same guy for all I know.He outlined some of the ways they have inferred some of the past events.

 

Some of the corals (I think it might have been brain corals but can’t remember for sure) some of the coral bommies can be sawn in half and the layers examined. They apparently have colour and mineral layers analogous to rings in trees. When the coral goes through stress periods and does it’s bleaching stuff apparently the layers representative of that have certain colour and growth rate and when it’s dead it gets other colours etc. things that leave a discernible line and then gradually it gets grown over by new coral and the layers start to grow again.

 

Obviously his use of the word fried is metaphorical since frying requires very high temps and oil. So what he means is the corals died rapidly from heat stress rather than just bleaching. But I have no knowledge on what temperature rises that needs. He’s obviously using some hyperbole. And that’s part of the continuing problem.

 

As I said originally The use of hyperbole by people who claim to have the moral and scientific high ground make their own broader positions and statements unbelievable when the disbelievers hear the hyperbole and state the obvious contradictions in the arguments.

 

 

[Flying Binghi]

I have been to a lecture where the local guru here at the James Cook Uni gave a talk about some of this stuff. Might even have been the same guy for all I know.He outlined some of the ways they have inferred some of the past events.Some of the corals (I think it might have been brain corals but can’t remember for sure) some of the coral bommies can be sawn in half and the layers examined...

The coral can also be core drilled much like a tree. And much like a tree the 'records' are wildly variable and open to interpretation - Hockey stick graph anyone (the bit of it that were based on tree rings) For example, unless you know what was growing around the coral, or the local currents one hundred years ago, how can you make a claim of direct comparison ?

I seems to recall seeing coral ring records going back many hundreds of years showing long periods of less annual growth then some of the recent records.

 

.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Of course you do

 

 

[Flying Binghi]

Of course you do

I thought the info were in already supplied links of other posters - Do i need to find a chart fer you ?...

 

 

[Flying Binghi]

Back with them coral 'tree rings'...

 

"...As coral grows, trace elements are incorporated into its calcium carbonate skeleton, with ratios of strontium to calcium (Sr/Ca) used like tree rings to determine yearly variations in ocean temperature.

 

Zinke's team took core samples from two Porites lutea coral colonies located 700 metres apart off Madagascar's north east coast. However, when they compared Sr/Ca ratios and growth rates over a 43-year period with historical sea surface temperature data for the region, they were puzzled to find that while one coral seemed to show a strong warming trend, the other showed no obvious trend at all..." Coral cores tell different warming stories › News in Science (ABC Science)

 

Well, that is interesting. Take two 'growth ring' samples from nearby colony's and get completely different 'answers'. I guess if yer took many core samples from a large area you would get much the same variance. So who decides which core samples are giving the 'correct' answer ?

 

...and then there is the big issue of Ontogenic Effect causing the core ring records to need an 'adjustment'. And I'm afraid I've never seen a graph fer that so I carn't explain it to fly_tornado..

 

.

 

 

[cscotthendry]

FB:

 

In almost every one of your posts, you have cited some exception case to prove that the whole theory is wrong. The scientists don't work on a "tree ring" here or there. They look at all the evidence and use statistcal analysis to reveal long term macro trends.

 

A lot of what you have posted here is along the lines of the politician who showed up in congress with a snowball from New York as proof that Global climate change isn't happening.

 

If you don't want to believe the science that climate change is real, and that most of the credible scientists who study it agree, that's perfectly OK. My brother in law doesn't believe it either and I see echoes of what he says in your posts here.

 

There are always exception cases that stand outside the trend lines, but they don't prove that the trend is wrong.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Instead of arguing about how much damage we're doing to our planet, we should be <mod censored> scared for our kids and grandies.

 

The evidence that we are stuffing up their inheritance is overwhelming.

 

The damage to our planet was mainly caused by a few hundred million affluent people, mostly in the west. Now several billion more are adopting this wasteful lifestyle, so consumption and pollution can only escalate. Overfishing is buggering up our oceans. Our rainforests are being cleared. Extinctions are accellerating. Groundwater is being mined at an unsustainable rate for short-term agriculture. Coastal lands are being lost to erosion and flooding. Mountain glaciers everywhere are retreating at an alarming rate, triggering water shortages. Melting of polar ice is accelerating.

 

The little trickle of refugees we have been so concerned about is only the prelude to massive population migrations...

 

and we argue about little details.

 

This discussion should be on the WUA (Off Topic) site.

 

 

[Flying Binghi]

1/ The evidence that we are stuffing up their inheritance is overwhelming.2/ The damage to our planet was mainly caused by a few hundred million affluent people...

 

3/ consumption and pollution can only escalate.

 

4/ Overfishing is buggering up our oceans.

 

5/ Our rainforests are being cleared.

 

6/ Extinctions are accellerating.

 

7/ Groundwater is being mined at an unsustainable rate for short-term agriculture.

 

8/ Coastal lands are being lost to erosion and flooding.

 

9/ Mountain glaciers everywhere are retreating at an alarming rate, triggering water shortages.

 

10/ Melting of polar ice is accelerating.

So, all is lost so we should just let the aircraft crash...

This is a pilots forum. Pilots trouble shoot problems methodically... (we are all Biggles, right..)

 

1/ Yep, the country is near bankrupt from all the money blown on wind and solar worship.

 

2/ Planet carn't be too damaged as it is feeding 6 billion or so of us and we keep getting better at it.

 

3/ Yes, we carn't send it all to China for reprocessing. The chickens will be coming home to roost re the setting up of an Oz recycling industry based on the Chinese taking it all. Now we will be paying BIG money for these recycling schemes. Money our near bankrupt country can ill afford.

 

4/ I agree we have an over fishing problem. An issue that needs to be approached as a stand alone matter that is not bogged down in the usual greeny hysterics of tying all and sundry issues to the matter at hand.

 

5/ As per #4. Though take note that thanks to increasing atmospheric CO2 levels creating better conditions for CO2 starved plants that the worlds total plant bio-mass is increasing. i.e., what some call the planets lungs is actually increasing all thanks to extra CO2.

 

6/ Yeah! Give me names...

 

7/ As per #4

 

8/ Some is lost and some is gained. The Great Barrier Reef is claimed to be about 8,000 years old.. why is that ?

 

9/ Some are receding, some are growing. Of interest is some of the receding European glaciers are exposing long buried villages and farms. Many of the glaciers have been receding because the world has been warming up since the last mini ice age a few hundred years ago.

 

10/ The Antarctic ice cap is growing.

 

.

 

 

[Flying Binghi]

FB:In almost every one of your posts, you have cited some exception case to prove that the whole theory is wrong. The scientists don't work on a "tree ring" here or there. They look at all the evidence and use statistcal analysis to reveal long term macro trends.A lot of what you have posted here is along the lines of the politician who showed up in congress with a snowball from New York as proof that Global climate change isn't happening.

 

If you don't want to believe the science that climate change is real, and that most of the credible scientists who study it agree, that's perfectly OK. My brother in law doesn't believe it either and I see echoes of what he says in your posts here.

 

There are always exception cases that stand outside the trend lines, but they don't prove that the trend is wrong.

cscotthendry, tell us how Ontogenic Effect is 'nullified' in the coral core/slice records.

And I think Eisenstein would have a comment to make about somebody turning up with a snowball as evidence. Remember the so-called climate experts were claiming many years ago that their children would not know what snow looks like...

 

.

 

 

[Nobody]

Flying Binghi, Please go away. There are plenty of other forums on the internet to discuss climate change but can we please leave this one to flying. You clearly have no interest in actually flying over the affected area and looking for yourself as you suggested in your first post. You don't actually wish to engage in sensible debate but are using this forum for ranting and raving about the issue without actually responding to the points others make.