# Great barrier reef sees record growth



## Amity Island (Aug 12, 2022)

Despite years of doom and gloom about global warming, the North and Mid great barrier reef sees record growth with the south hindered only by Starfish. Only recently we have heard statements such as "that the reef will be so degraded by warming seas that it will be gone within 20 years, and that this situation is now irreversible"









						Great Barrier Reef sees record coral cover, but it is highly vulnerable
					

Parts of the reef see the most coral growth in 36 years - but it is highly vulnerable to threats.



					www.bbc.com


----------



## Windy (Aug 14, 2022)

Sadly, they're still at risk, and there's been a massive reduction in biodiversity on the planet due to habitat loss and climate change. 
One of the reasons that corals are at threat from climate change is that it makes the sea water slightly more acidic, as the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reacts with the water to form carbonic acid.
Part of the coral's structure is a chalk/calcium carbonate based structure, which is dissolved by the carbonic acid in the water (acid + a base/alkali = a salt + water), which weakens the coral. The water doesn't have to be massively acidic, it just has to be more acidic than the coral can cope with.

You can replicate this at home as an experiment by putting a piece of chalk into a glass of vinegar or cola and it gets attacked by the acid (though it's acetic acid for vinegar, but the same carbonic acid for the fizzy pop). It's also the reason why drinking too much fizzy pop isn't good for your teeth.
[source: did chemistry a long time ago]


----------



## Amity Island (Aug 14, 2022)

Windy said:


> Sadly, they're still at risk, and there's been a massive reduction in biodiversity on the planet due to habitat loss and climate change.
> One of the reasons that corals are at threat from climate change is that it makes the sea water slightly more acidic, as the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reacts with the water to form carbonic acid.
> Part of the coral's structure is a chalk/calcium carbonate based structure, which is dissolved by the carbonic acid in the water (acid + a base/alkali = a salt + water), which weakens the coral. The water doesn't have to be massively acidic, it just has to be more acidic than the coral can cope with.
> 
> ...


Despite this, we've seen record growth. 

We've had decades of experts and scientists telling us about the great barrier reef being in decline and irreversible, yet not one of these experts said we'd see record growth. It's all been a one sided doom and gloom argument. That's "science" for you. Science leaves possibilities open not case closed.

In terms of vulnerability, I can't think of anything that isn't vulnerable, be it your job, your pension, the roof on ones house, the tyres on your car, the grass in your garden, the roads etc. Everything decays, dies. Everything is temporary. To say that the great barrier reef is vulnerable is a given, just like anything else.


----------



## Dave_Z1a (Aug 14, 2022)

Amity Island said:


> Despite this, we've seen record growth.
> 
> We've had decades of experts and scientists telling us about the great barrier reef being in decline and irreversible, yet not one of these experts said we'd see record growth. It's all been a one sided doom and gloom argument. That's "science" for you. Science leaves possibilities open not case closed.
> 
> In terms of vulnerability, I can't think of anything that isn't vulnerable, be it your job, your pension, the roof on ones house, the tyres on your car, the grass in your garden, the roads etc. Everything decays, dies. Everything is temporary. To say that the great barrier reef is vulnerable is a given, just like anything else.


Er yes I saw that report, oddly not mentioned in mainstream media, doesn't fit the current narrative of the day of course. I take any science article/study/revelation with a huge pinch of salt, if you dig a little there is often a high correlation between their "results" and the results/conclusions showing the financial study's backer in a positive light. My dad used to say to me question everything, form your own opinion once you have studied balanced arguments from all sides. Science used to say the sun revolved round the earth, that thalidomide was safe etc. Guess who said breakfast was the most important meal of the day? Mr. Kellogs. Lol!


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Aug 14, 2022)

Amity Island said:


> Despite this, we've seen record growth.


The story says
These latest results demonstrate the reef can recover if conditions allow, Dr Hardisty says, but "acute and severe disturbances" are becoming more frequent and longer.​The reef has also been damaged by coral-eating crown-of-thorns starfish and tropical cyclones which generate damaging waves.​Much of the new coral growth - a species called Acropora - is especially exposed to the reef's threats, said Dr Mike Emslie from Aims.​"This means that... future disturbance can reverse the observed recovery in a short amount of time," he said.​So I'm not sure it really changes the accepted analysis that coral reefs are at significant risk and are really not doing OK.


----------



## Eddy Edson (Aug 14, 2022)

The report: https://www.aims.gov.au/monitoring-great-barrier-reef/gbr-condition-summary-2021-22

Good to see some resilience; nothing real here for climate change deniers, but that's never stopped them.


----------



## Amity Island (Aug 14, 2022)

Eddy Edson said:


> The report: https://www.aims.gov.au/monitoring-great-barrier-reef/gbr-condition-summary-2021-22
> 
> Good to see some resilience; nothing real here for climate change deniers, but that's never stopped them.


Eddy,

Just a cursory look back at the past decades of stories and reports, show quite clearly and abundantly that the deniers are the scientists who only peddle one side of the narrative, never expressing any chance or probability of the opposing story. That is by definition misinformation.

They come out now and tell us ooh look, it can make a recovery, but that's definitely not what they have been telling us, decade after decade.

Science leaves things open to new evidence, new discoveries. They were so convinced they were right until they are proven wrong and they make a living out of selling misinformation.

It's as @Dave_Z1a said, it's about presenting both sides of the story, giving a balanced view, not just the one you're funded to present. There is no need to deny anything, just present it all.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Aug 14, 2022)

Amity Island said:


> It's as @Dave_Z1a said, it's about presenting both sides of the story, giving a balanced view, not just the one you're funded to present.


Not all stories have a balanced view. Some are overwhelmingly one sided, and presenting them as balanced would then be misleading. (And the BBC has acknowledged that they have made that kind of error when reporting about climate change.)

I think that's the case with climate change and coral reefs: overwhelmingly, scientists think warming and increasing carbon dioxide levels is bad news for coral reefs. Maybe there are some parts of coral reefs that might expand (and that would be good news, worth reporting (as the BBC has done)) but overall they seem to be dying.


----------



## Drummer (Aug 14, 2022)

Just because there is some increase in growth doesn't alter the fact that the reef was in decline in the past - and it is no guarantee that there will be continued growth, or that regeneration can and will occur.
Some people claim that forest is increased when great swathes of single type foreign sourced trees are planted in strict rows, allowed to grew, are then cut down and the ground sterilized before another lot is planted - nothing could be further from the truth.
The original ecosystem of the reef is still under threat just as much as before, or perhaps even more so as something different is growing now in the same space.


----------



## Rob Oldfield (Aug 14, 2022)

Dave_Z1a said:


> Er yes I saw that report, oddly not mentioned in mainstream media,



The very first post on the thread was a link to a BBC version of the story.  The BBC doesn't count as 'mainstream'?


----------



## Amity Island (Aug 14, 2022)

Bruce Stephens said:


> Not all stories have a balanced view.


Clearly they do in this case.

A balanced assessment or opinion on the great barrier reef would of been: "they are in decline at the moment and are likely to rebound in the future".


----------



## Rob Oldfield (Aug 14, 2022)

Amity Island said:


> Clearly they do in this case.
> 
> A balanced assessment or opinion on the great barrier reef would of been: "they are in decline at the moment and are likely to rebound in the future".



Where's the evidence to support 'likely to rebound in the future'?


----------



## Dave_Z1a (Aug 14, 2022)

Rob Oldfield said:


> The very first post on the thread was a link to a BBC version of the story.  The BBC doesn't count as 'mainstream'?


Defiantly not! Mickey mouse blatantly biased outfit.


----------



## Rob Oldfield (Aug 14, 2022)

Dave_Z1a said:


> Defiantly not! Mickey mouse blatantly biased outfit.


Righty ho.  What does count as mainstream in your world?


----------



## travellor (Aug 14, 2022)

Drummer said:


> Just because there is some increase in growth doesn't alter the fact that the reef was in decline in the past - and it is no guarantee that there will be continued growth, or that regeneration can and will occur.
> Some people claim that forest is increased when great swathes of single type foreign sourced trees are planted in strict rows, allowed to grew, are then cut down and the ground sterilized before another lot is planted - nothing could be further from the truth.
> The original ecosystem of the reef is still under threat just as much as before, or perhaps even more so as something different is growing now in the same space.



This thread caught my eye because even though I have an "ignore" on the original poster it's popped up in what's new, and I intend to dive The Great Barrier Reef one day.
Unfortunately, the survey was carried out before the great bleaching that occurred again this year, but more importantly, it's like saying it's ok, all the grass has died off in the lawn, but loads of moss has replaced it. 
Oh, and the garden is overrun with snails that will eat the moss.
I don't think I will see the original Barrier Reef, and the variety and abundance of the original creatures.

It seems we agree here


----------



## Amity Island (Aug 14, 2022)

Rob Oldfield said:


> Where's the evidence to support 'likely to rebound in the future'?


That's the trouble with making predictions without taking into account other possibilities. I think if we had really long term data, we might see the types of cycles from year to year in the graph I attached. But....we may also come to find bigger cycles within that. It's clear there had been a decline above and beyond the typical yearly cycles, but this was obviously met with a huge upswing out performing anything seen in the last 36 years. The planet will have things going on beyond what we measure.

The great barrier reef has probably been around for hundreds of millions of years, with that in mind, there is no reason to exclude the possibility it would see some times of surge and recovery..


----------



## Amity Island (Aug 14, 2022)

travellor said:


> This thread caught my eye because even though I have an "ignore" on the original poster it's popped up in what's new, and I intend to dive The Great Barrier Reef one day.


Your post is testament of how things can, against all odds, make a sudden comeback and resurgence just like the great barrier reef.


----------



## Rob Oldfield (Aug 14, 2022)

Amity Island said:


> That's the trouble with making predictions without taking into account other possibilities. I think if we had really long term data, we might see the types of cycles from year to year in the graph I attached. But....we may also come to find bigger cycles within that. It's clear there had been a decline above and beyond the typical yearly cycles, but this was obviously met with a huge upswing out performing anything seen in the last 36 years. The planet will have things going on beyond what we measure.
> 
> The great barrier reef has probably been around for hundreds of millions of years, with that in mind, there is no reason to exclude the possibility it would see some times of surge and recovery..



That's the trouble with people on the internet thinking they have as much knowledge as subject experts.  The experts wrote a report which you can read that is very clear.  If you have other experts who disagree with their conclusions then fine, bring 'em on.  In the meantime, I'm going to believe the current scientific consensus.


----------



## Dave_Z1a (Aug 14, 2022)

Rob Oldfield said:


> Righty ho.  What does count as mainstream in your world?


Don't realy like the term "mainstream" anyway Rob, but virtually all of these organisations have an inbuilt bias, some more than others, here is one that everybody will recognise, CNN. Some say that its impossible to have unbiased news coverage and to some extent this is true. However in my case I am more trusting of Reuters, Associated press and The Financial Times.


----------



## Amity Island (Aug 15, 2022)

Rob Oldfield said:


> That's the trouble with people on the internet thinking they have as much knowledge as subject experts.  The experts wrote a report which you can read that is very clear.  If you have other experts who disagree with their conclusions then fine, bring 'em on.  In the meantime, I'm going to believe the current scientific consensus.


Rob, doesn't take an expert to work out if something has been there for 500 million years, that its likely to be there tomorrow and next year and that it's not irreversible. How many climate changes will there have been during 500 million years?

My point is the great barrier reef has seen record growth, do you agree or not agree with that?


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Aug 15, 2022)

Amity Island said:


> Rob, doesn't take an expert to work out if something has been there for 500 million years, that its likely to be there tomorrow and next year and that it's not irreversible.


That sounds a lot like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity which is exactly one argument that climate change deniers use.

I'm afraid I'm still inclined to trust the judgement of people who study this for a living.


----------



## Eddy Edson (Aug 15, 2022)

Bruce Stephens said:


> That sounds a lot like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity which is exactly one argument that climate change deniers use.
> 
> I'm afraid I'm still inclined to trust the judgement of people who study this for a living.


I was about to say that it sounds like complete bs given that queensland iirc was part of pangaea 500m years ago and located somewhere near the south pole. Also because the current reef actually dates back about 6,000 years. Also if you want to argue that reefs developing and dying off over time with climate change etc means *nothing to see here* then you've got rocks in yr head.


----------



## Amity Island (Aug 15, 2022)

@Eddy Edson @Rob Oldfield @Bruce Stephens

The post wasn't about climate change. It was about the barrier reef making a record recovery. There is no consensus on that, it's a fact. Of course the climate is changing, it always has and always will, like the weather and just about everything else in existence. I'm not denying that. My observation about the reef being there for a long time, suggesting it will likely be there tomorrow is just common sense. I parked my car in a carpark this morning, I'd make a sensible assumption it'll be there when I return tonight. I'm not denying anything by assuming that.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Aug 15, 2022)

Amity Island said:


> Of course the climate is changing, it always has and always will, like the weather and just about everything else in existence.


Which is another common line from climate change deniers. The climate has always changed, therefore the current change is nothing special so we needn't worry about it. (And sometimes the argument goes that we can't do anything about the current change and/or that the current change can't be caused by humans.) Again, I'm going to trust the people who study this for a living.


----------



## Amity Island (Aug 15, 2022)

Bruce Stephens said:


> Which is another common line from climate change deniers.


It's also plain common sense to say that the climate changes, but for some reason you keep linking this back to climate change deniers (why?). The post is about the recovery of the great barrier reef, which many, many experts and reports have failed to predict in their "expert" opinions. If I hadn't had an official report proving this, the thread would of been hijacked by those claiming it another conspiracy theory.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Aug 15, 2022)

Amity Island said:


> It's also plain common sense to say that the climate changes, but for some reason you keep linking this back to climate change deniers (why?).


Because you used, word for word, a common line used by climate change deniers. And climate change is what's destroying the reefs (both the increase in temperature and the increase in carbon dioxide (the main cause of the increase)).


Amity Island said:


> The post is about the recovery of the great barrier reef, which many, many experts and reports have failed to predict in their "expert" opinions.


They describe it in rather balanced terms:

The reef's northern and central parts have the highest amount of coral cover since monitoring began 36 years ago.​But coral cover in the southern part of the reef has decreased.​The new coral is particularly vulnerable - meaning the progress could be quickly undone by climate change and other threats, officials say.​
The story adds

The reef has also been damaged by coral-eating crown-of-thorns starfish and tropical cyclones which generate damaging waves.​Much of the new coral growth - a species called Acropora - is especially exposed to the reef's threats, said Dr Mike Emslie from Aims.​"This means that... future disturbance can reverse the observed recovery in a short amount of time," he said.​
Which doesn't seem to justify your suggestion


Amity Island said:


> A balanced assessment or opinion on the great barrier reef would of been: "they are in decline at the moment and are likely to rebound in the future".


No, they really don't think the Great Barrier Reef is likely to rebound in the future. I wish we could all feel more optimistic but in this case I just don't think that's justified.


----------



## Amity Island (Aug 15, 2022)

Bruce Stephens said:


> Because you used, word for word, a common line used by climate change deniers. And climate change is what's destroying the reefs (both the increase in temperature and the increase in carbon dioxide (the main cause of the increase)).
> 
> They describe it in rather balanced terms:
> 
> ...


Bruce, I 've made no suggestions or comments denying anything or suggesting that man isn't involved in some way in the decline of the barrier reef. There are lots of problems in that area on top of climate change. My post is about the fact that the reef has made a recovery against decades of doom and gloom reports and news about their "irreversible" demise. This just shows how amazingly resilient nature is and how man can get (predictions) things wrong. There is nothing more I can add.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Aug 15, 2022)

Amity Island said:


> My post is about the fact that the reef has made a recovery against decades of doom and gloom reports and news about their "irreversible" demise.


One part of the reef has grown, with coral they consider to be particularly vulnerable to damage.

So it's good news, but not an indication that the reef is "likely to rebound in the future".


----------



## Amity Island (Aug 15, 2022)

Bruce Stephens said:


> Because you used, word for word, a common line used by climate change deniers. And climate change is what's destroying the reefs (both the increase in temperature and the increase in carbon dioxide (the main cause of the increase)).
> 
> They describe it in rather balanced terms:
> 
> ...


Here is an Obituary written in the Guardian, this clearly shows what the experts were predicting for the great barrier reef. As I said, If one had said we would see record growth, this would have been written off as a conspiracy theory.





__





						The Great Barrier Reef: an obituary
					

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is gathering in Yokohama, Japan, to explore the array of impacts climate change is having on the natural world. For one of Earth's natural wonders, the Great Barrier Reef, the situation is stark – emissions must be cut radically, and quickly, if the...




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Aug 15, 2022)

Amity Island said:


> If one had said we would see record growth, this would have been written off as a conspiracy theory.


Really? It says that "some scientists think it can hold on in an altered state, similar to its previous incarnations". I doubt the idea of part of the reef growing quickly (with coral that's particularly vulnerable to damage, so probably a temporary growth) would have been startling. It might have been thought unlikely.


----------



## Amity Island (Aug 15, 2022)

Bruce Stephens said:


> Really? It says that "some scientists think it can hold on in an altered state, similar to its previous incarnations". I doubt the idea of part of the reef growing quickly (with coral that's particularly vulnerable to damage, so probably a temporary growth) would have been startling. It might have been thought unlikely.


It's an obituary, how could we have record growth when they are publishing an obituary?


----------



## Windy (Aug 15, 2022)

Amity Island said:


> It's an obituary, how could we have record growth when they are publishing an obituary?


I presume it's because their research lead the scientists behind the obituary to believe it to be the case. Not all scientists agree, and theories change as new evidence comes in, and that's a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

The population of humans on the Earth has doubled since the early 1970s, and that's put pressure on land to house and feed us.
We burn more fossil fuels, take more flights, and drive more cars, all of which adds CO2 to the atmosphere, which adds to ocean acidification, and puts pressure on animal and plant communities like the GB reef by making them live in a slightly more acidic environment than that which they evolved into. 
Quickly reproducing species may do ok as long as they have a heterozygotic (genetically diverse) population with enough genetic variation to have members with the traits which mean they can adapt to the changed conditions. 
The problem is where there's either isolated populations, or a homozygotic population which can't adapt to the new conditions. 
Corals complicate this because they're an example of symbiosis (commensualism), where it isn't a single organism, but two interconnected organisms. They might not both have the traits to survive, and if that's the case, the reef won't do very well. For bigger organisms with slower life cycles, they're really on their uppers, as the rate of change due to climate change may mean they suffer extirpation/local extinction.

TL;DR: Nature is adaptable to change, but if the change is too fast, species may just die out.


----------



## Amity Island (Aug 15, 2022)

Windy said:


> I presume it's because their research lead the scientists behind the obituary to believe it to be the case. Not all scientists agree, and theories change as new evidence comes in, and that's a good thing as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> The population of humans on the Earth has doubled since the early 1970s, and that's put pressure on land to house and feed us.
> We burn more fossil fuels, take more flights, and drive more cars, all of which adds CO2 to the atmosphere, which adds to ocean acidification, and puts pressure on animal and plant communities like the GB reef by making them live in a slightly more acidic environment than that which they evolved into.
> ...


I honestly don't think they are helping themselves or anybody else by publishing such grave and extreme headlines. People just won't take them seriously in the event they are actually right. Like the boy who cried wolf. So many others are doing the same thing. Greta Thunberg was telling people to be in a panic and fear climate change. She was interviewed by the US government committe on climate change about her statements, she back peddled and said she didn't mean it literally! But never clarified this at the time. She was then pressed on what she had based such alarming comments on she said nothing or something to that effect.

Then you see new surveys about record recoveries of the great barrier reef. Of course we need to look after the planet, but allow for other possibilities when making public statements.


----------

