95% bleached? Rubbish

I watched a program the other day that stated the northern parts of the reef were in good order & the most pristene.

If you look at the precipitation map, it becomes obvious to most people that it's not as cut and dried as you say.

Great Barrier Reef: Only 7 per cent not bleached, survey finds

Bleaching of this magnitude is affecting "virtually all" coral species. (Justin Marshall/coralwatch.org)
RELATED STORY: In pictures: A close-up look at the Great Barrier Reef's bleachingRELATED STORY: 'Devastating' Great

Barrier Reef bleaching worse than first thoughtRELATED STORY: Coral bleaching threat level increased by authorities

Aerial and underwater surveys of the Great Barrier Reef have revealed 93 per cent of it has been bleached to some extent.

Aerial checks of more than 900 individual reefs showed the spread varies dramatically along its 2,300 kilometres, from 90 per cent north of Port Douglas to less than 10 per cent south of Mackay.

What is coral bleaching?

Occurs when abnormal environmental conditions cause coral to expel tiny photosynthetic algae, called zooxanthellae
Loss of colourful algae causes coral to turn white and "bleach".
Bleached coral can recover if the temperature drops and zooxanthellae are able to recolonise them, otherwise it may die

Professor Terry Hughes from the National Coral Bleaching Taskforce said the most severe bleaching had hit the northern section of the reef, which stretches 1,000 kilometres north of Port Douglas.

"We've never seen bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef of that severity and when bleaching is that strong it affects virtually all coral species," Professor Hughes said.

"We expect the central and southern corals to regain their colour and recover over the next few months.

Close-up pictures show stark effects of coral bleaching


Images document the ongoing bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef as ocean temperatures continue to be driven upward by climate change.
"The southern third of the Great Barrier Reef fortunately cooled down late in summer due to ex-cyclone Winston.

"The 2016 footprint could have been much worse."

But Professor Hughes said the overall picture was much worse than the past two bleaching events.

"In 1998 and 2002, 40 per cent of the reefs had no bleaching — it's only 7 per cent this time," he said.

"We also know in 1998 and 2002 about 18 per cent of the reefs were severely bleaching — this time it's over half.

"So by those metrics this bleaching event is three or four times more severe."

Professor Andrew Baird from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies has spent the past 17 days at sea recording the bleaching event.

"Tragically, the northern section is the most remote part of the reef, and its remoteness has protected it from most human pressures but not climate change," he said.

"North of Port Douglas, we're already measuring an average of close to 50 per cent mortality of bleached corals."

Meanwhile, Australia's southern waters are experiencing an extended warm period that scientists say offers a glimpse into Tasmania's climate future.

Water's off the state's east coast have been up to four degrees warmer than average for more than 100 days.

http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_630_noupscale/5717581a1900002e0056b...

ONE of the country’s most loved landmarks is facing extinction and everyone is scrambling to do something about it — except making the one hard decision that could actually save it.

The plight of the Great Barrier Reef has become a global concern with Hollywood superstars, legendary documentary makers and billionaire entrepreneurs drawing attention to its fragile state.

On Thursday the ABC revealed secret modelling that showed it could cost up to $16 billion to meet water quality targets over the next 10 years just to meet water quality targets for the reef.

Both sides of government have announced more money to improve reef’s condition but the funding has so far been millions, not billions.

They are also ignoring calls for a coal moratorium, despite experts saying this will be crucial to preserving one of Australia’s most lucrative attractions.

While it might seem like a crazy idea to some, experts say blocking the construction of new mines would actually be good for the economy.

Is this something Australia should really be considering? And what would it cost us?
A COAL MORATORIUM SOUNDS EXTREME, IS IT REALLY NECESSARY?
We all want to ensure the Great Barrier Reef survives but is it really necessary to block new coal mines?

It may not be the answer people want to hear, but experts believe it’s something Australia needs to do.
Climate change was identified as the most serious threat to the Great Barrier Reef, according to the government-funded Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s report.

Australia has already promised to keep temperature rises to under two degrees as part of the Paris global climate change agreement, but meeting this target may not be enough to save the reef.

“It is highly likely that two degrees of warming (above pre-industrial rates) would destroy the Great Barrier Reef as we know it,” Professor Will Steffen of the Climate Council told news.com.au.

“There may be a few individual reefs or pockets of corals that survive, but the vast sweep of reefs along Australia’s northeast coast would be gone, converted into algae-based ecosystems.”

He is not the only one who feels this way. In April, a group of 56 scientists signed an open letter calling for Australia to block new coal mines and phase out coal-fired power stations.

WOULDN’T IT HURT US ECONOMICALLY?
It’s all well and good to have the best intentions, but many Australians may not be willing to sacrifice economic growth in order to preserve the reef. The good news is, we don’t have to.

Economist Stephen Bartos of Pegasus Economics told news.com.au that if Australia pulled out of coal abruptly there would be a short term impact on growth but in the longer term moving away from mining would actually be a good thing.

This is because the growth we get from mining is mostly temporary and largely comes from jobs created during construction. Once they become operational mines don’t need as many people to keep them running.

“Not investing in coal mines doesn’t harm the economy if we invest in other productive things instead,” Mr Bartos said.

“People forget the economy is dynamic, what happens if we don’t invest in Project A, is we’ve got the resources for Project B. It’s not a negative in reality, the economy adjusts.”

In particular, he said thermal coal used for power plants would probably not be a good future investment.
“The cost of renewables is falling rapidly and will likely be more economical than coal in the very near future,” he said.
The Australia Institute chief economist Richard Denniss said it might feel counterintuitive but stopping the development of new mines in Australia would be “very good” for the country.

“The world’s demand for coal is flat or declining,” he said. “So if new mines are built in Queensland they will push the world price of coal down.

“The best way to help existing coal miners is to prevent the construction of their competitors.”

Assoc Prof Denniss said claims the new Carmichael coal mine would create thousands of jobs had been hyped up. Adani once claimed the new mine in the Galilee Basin would create 10,000 jobs, but has since admitted in court that it was more likely to be about 1400 jobs, including indirect jobs, over 30 years.

“There are well over 150,000 unemployed people in Queensland, there is no scenario that building new coal mines will solve Queensland’s employment problem, especially when new coal mines harm the tourism industry in both the short term and the long term,” Assoc Prof Denniss said.

In contrast the Great Barrier Reef is estimated to generate revenues of $6 billion each year while employing 70,000 people...