Quote:


https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-12-11/great-barrier-reef-bleaching-less...

Not as many corals "died" as thought. Something you would expect from a species that has experienced both warmer and cooler climates.

""But bleaching doesn't mean the coral is dead, just that it no longer has its primary source of food — the algae.

"If ocean temperatures return to normal quickly enough coral can recover, and it's quite possible that the algae that comes back will be the more resilient algae." "

ibid

From the ABC report -
"In 2016, more than 44 per cent of the 606 reefs surveyed for their project suffered severe bleaching, compared to 31.5 per cent in 2017, according to Terry Hughes from James Cook University."

""The zooxanthellae reside within the corals' tissues, but when ocean temperatures increase by more than 2C for extended periods of time, the relationship between the algae and the coral breaks down and the coral must expel the algae in order to survive," he said.

"But bleaching doesn't mean the coral is dead, just that it no longer has its primary source of food — the algae.

"If ocean temperatures return to normal quickly enough coral can recover, and it's quite possible that the algae that comes back will be the more resilient algae."

So bleaching is not death


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --  -- - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- -- -
"In early 2016, we heard that the reef had suffered the worst bleaching ever recorded. Surveys published in June that year estimated that 93% of coral on the vast northern section of the reef was bleached, and 22% had already been killed."

https://theconversation.com/its-official-2016s-great-barrier-reef-bleaching-was-...

it seems the figures have more than halved.

Robot wrote on Dec 30^th, 2018 at 8:36pm:


OOH reiteration.

yes petal. Now how did they determine they were actually dead? And hadn't merely expelled the zooxanthellae ? Did they do autopsies? If so why weren't they published? Did they think they could tell merely by looking at them?

Why the discrepancy between 98% of coral and 44% of coral?

"“We were astonished to find less bleaching in 2017, because the temperatures were even more extreme than the year before,” he said."

Astonished even.

"“The outcome in 2017 depended on the conditions experienced by the corals one year earlier. We called that ‘ecological memory,’ and show that these repeating events are now acting together in ways that we didn’t expect,” said Prof Hughes."

https://www.jcu.edu.au/news/releases/2018/november2/a-glimmer-of-hope-for-the-wo...

Well I guess as they were astonished they had to call it something. Didn't need to prove it, just called it that. I am not sure how they could claim " that these repeating events are now acting together" since we haven't had a repeat since 2017.

Seeing as corals have survived both warmer and cooler temperatures in the last 500,000 years, they could just have called them survivors.

Robot wrote on Dec 30^th, 2018 at 9:46pm:



Look at that Robot accepting whatever is thrown at him as science.

Robot wrote on Dec 30^th, 2018 at 9:46pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 31^st, 2018 at 12:47pm:



You mean like in 2016 when 98% of the reef was "bleached" back when "bleached" was a euphemism for "dead"?

And then fast forward to 2018 and it was only 44% "bleached" and "bleaching is not dead".

They were astonished that less than 98% was dead?

"The media release distributed with the government agency data focused on dispelling perceived exaggerations of the damage, and on the ability of coral to recover, rather than on the size of the environmental disaster.

“Despite reported claims and counter claims over the last month about the ‘death’ of large swathes of the Great Barrier Reef, the true impact of this summer’s major coral bleaching event is now emerging,” it read.

In the release, John Gunn, chief executive of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, said the impacts of the bleaching were still playing out. “And while we know many corals in the northern sector will die, others will recover from bleaching over the coming months and we’re hopeful that in areas where bleaching has been minor the Reef will bounce back well.” "

"Reichelt said 22% of the coral along the length of the reef appeared to be dead."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/03/agencies-say-22-of-barrier-r...

From the garudian, so it must be true.

So now we have 3 figures. 98%, 44% and 22%. Which to believe?

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 31^st, 2018 at 12:47pm:


You mean the IPCC that released the Special Report SR5?

The one that said -
"Since 1970 the global average temperature has been rising at a rate of 1.7°C per century, compared to a long-term decline over the past 7,000 years at a baseline rate of 0.01°C per century (NOAA 2016, Marcott et al. 2013). "

Even though Marcott had already disowned the "last 100 years" of his graph?

The one that used RCP 8.5 as the business-as usual case when it is the most dire prediction?

The RCP 8.5  which has been described as so extreme as to be implausible?

You do understand that the IPCC is NOT "the world's most authoritative climate science body"?

The IPCC's name says it all. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. A government body. That is further reflected in the outline for SR5 -

"Subject to correction, copy-editing, layout and "trickleback" adjustments to the text of the full report to ensure consistency with the approved Summary for Policymakers "

https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/

You would think if it were a science based report any corrections should be to the science not the Summary for Policymakers who are government wonks.

Just too funny.