From Rerru Terry Hughes et al. The same Terry Hughes who pronounced that 66% of GBR dying and now dead.

Now just four years later -

"Knowledge of a species’ abundance is critically important for assessing its risk of extinction, but for the vast majority of wild animal and plant species such data are scarce at biogeographic scales. Here, we estimate the total number of reef-building corals and the population sizes of more than 300 individual species on reefs spanning the Pacific Ocean biodiversity gradient, from Indonesia to French Polynesia. Our analysis suggests that approximately half a trillion corals (0.3 × 1012–0.8 × 1012) inhabit these coral reefs, similar to the number of trees in the Amazon. Two-thirds of the examined species have population sizes exceeding 100 million colonies, and one-fifth of the species even have population sizes greater than 1 billion colonies. Our findings suggest that, while local depletions pose imminent threats that can have ecologically devastating impacts to coral reefs, the global extinction risk of most coral species is lower than previously estimated."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-021-01393-4

Yes, I know the GBR is not the sole area of reefs.  And yes I do know that those "dead" reefs have had a miraculous Lazarus event.

And yes Peter Ridd got sacked from JCU for not being collegial and saying that Hughes "research" was junk science. Hughes it may be remembered  flew over the coral reefs.

Terry Hughes seems to have walked back somewhat.  Although, strangely, there is no Australian Data. Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Cook Islands, Solomon Islands, American Samoa and French Polynesia.

Quote:

From Rerru Terry Hughes et al. The same Terry Hughes who pronounced that 66% of GBR dying and now dead.

34% is not extinct Lee. Surely you could have figured that one out yourself.

freediver wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 8:01am:

34% is not extinct Lee. Surely you could have figured that one out yourself.

And Terry Hughes knows dead coral by flyovers. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

And of course that wasn't the paper I quoted. "The same terry Hughes" should have told you that petal.

66% dead is entirely compatible with "not extinct", even if the claims come from two different papers. Did you have a point, or did you just want to demonstrate your confusion?

freediver wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 1:04pm:

66% dead is entirely compatible with "not extinct", even if the claims come from two different papers.

You should try quoting correctly. You do understand the meaning of "imminent"?