
Scientists record biggest ever coral die-off on Australia's Great Barrier Reef - af16090
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-environment-idUSKBN13O059
======
blondie9x
When I see all these catastrophic events related to the the changes we cause
to the climate, I sometimes question the point of living the way most of us
do. The values and things we chase, our day-to-day endeavors. None of it
matters if we don't drive towards sustenance, because nothing would last, all
the pursuits would be forgotten, the light of mankind would fade if
sustainability isn't the top priority. There would be no way for humans to
become an interplanetary species, for generations to continue through all the
ages of the universe. Nothing would matter if we live a life now that destroys
the potential life of our successors.

~~~
Nition
Yep. And it's very hard to change without everyone else changing as well. And
it's very hard for everyone else to change unless that change is mandated at a
government level. And it's very hard for change to happen at a government
level unless every country is doing it. And that's VERY hard.

No-one wants to give everything up while everyone else gets to keep living how
they want and ruining the environment for you anyway. I wish we could get more
worldwide consensus on real change.

~~~
harwoodleon
It's not hard to change. If everyone changed what they do day to day (stop
flying, stop eating beef, stop driving everywhere), we would not be talking
about the future in such a bleak way. But everyone thinks they are the
exception, it's OK if they do it. That's why governments introduce taxes to
discourage bad behaviour, because people are ultimately stupid.

~~~
monkmartinez
> If everyone changed what they do day to day (stop flying, stop eating beef,
> stop driving everywhere), we would not be talking about the future in such a
> bleak way.

And what would replace these things? Would they not create another
catastrophic problem in another area?

What is the magic bullet that fixes all the world's problems??

~~~
agmcleod
Transit that uses renewable energy, or zero fossil fuels. Such as walking &
cycling. Obviously one can cut beef out of their diet, or go full vegetarian.
Stop flying is a bit trickier for people who need to travel around, but high
speed trains that run on electricity are a good consideration.

~~~
Ma8ee
And a lot of travelling can be replaced with video meetings. (Seriously, what
is a good term? I was about to write Skype-meetings, but want a general term
(in particularly since Skype predictably sucks more and more since MS bought
them).)

~~~
agmcleod
Video calls, remote meetings, typically how we call it at work. Use it with
clients even in the city

------
oska
If you'd told Australians in the 70s and 80s that the Great Barrier Reef would
suffer catastrophic impacts in 40 years time and the government would both
deny and ignore it, they would have been shocked and in disbelief. Australia
was a different country then. The level of climate change denialism and the
severe fixation on ‘houses and holes’ (property speculation and mining) is
hard to believe if you haven't lived here. The change in political culture
started taking hold around the year 2000.

~~~
ehnto
My anecdotal response is that it's not denial that is the problem, but
ignorance and indifference.

No one in my social circle talks about it. It might be on the news, but no one
I know watches the news anymore either.

I am going to be honest and say outside of this particular HN post and a guy
in a mall some months ago, I have not once been exposed to it.

~~~
prawn
I don't think it's as much ignorance as it is a specific reaction and
pushback. I imagine we've all got someone in our social circle who pushes back
against "political correctness gone made", or the green agenda or whatever
else. Oddly, it's very rarely against the big end of town. Maybe that's
because wealth is still something that almost everyone aspires to?

If not that, a feeling of helplessness? You can cut down on beef, but you can
hardly convince everyone or stop industry lobbying against the environment.

------
aplummer
In the last half decade the reef at port douglas has gone from "Straight out
of finding nemo" to a ghostly wasteland (from personally diving there). It's a
real shame.

There are still smaller good bits you can find, but overall it's no good at
all.

~~~
artursapek
Is it possible this has nothing to do with human activity, and naturally
happens on its own? (Thinking along the lines of a forest fire)

~~~
monkmartinez
I really wish you were taken more seriously. I worked at AFWA (Offutt AFB)
from 2002 to 2004. I worked at the Global Wx and Event desk where we tracked
hurricanes, volcanic activity, haboob's and more! I am no Phd scientist, but
thoroughly enjoyed the conversations|discussions|arguments on "climate
change."

I would stare at a large monitor and pick out a volcanic plume easily while
the city of Quito was not even recognizable. I would really have to hunt for
LA or San Francisco in comparison to a giant haboob in the ME. Your standard
cold front is more recognizable than any major city from the satellites we
used (30m, 15m, 10m mostly).

Pondering how often these volcanoes erupt and send horrific gases aloft, it is
hard to say; "Humans are doing it ALL!" Not to mention the thousands (tens, or
hundreds of thousands?) of underwater volcanoes that emit all sorts of
horribleness.

Then you contemplate that the Earth has been here for 4 billion years + or - a
few million... How much hubris do we have to measure for a couple _hundred_
years and say unequivocally; "Humans DID this!!!" It seems a bit...

~~~
harwoodleon
Seems a bit what? I really wish I could take you more seriously. There is
undoubted, undeniable evidence that human factors caused this bleaching
effect. Yes humans are doing it ALL.

It is not up for debate.

~~~
harwoodleon
"The results suggest that the thermal toler- ances of reef-building corals are
likely to be exceeded every year within the next few decades. Events as severe
as the 1998 event, the worst on record, are likely to become commonplace
within 20 years. Most information suggests that the capacity for acclimation
by corals has already been exceeded, and that adap- tation will be too slow to
avert a decline in the quality of the worldís reefs. The rapidity of the
changes that are predicted indicates a major problem for tropical marine
ecosystems and suggests that unrestrained warming cannot occur without the
loss and degradation of coral reefs on a global scale."

Predicted 17 years ago.

[http://www.publish.csiro.au/MF/pdf/MF99078](http://www.publish.csiro.au/MF/pdf/MF99078)

------
tfigment
Glad to see the promised investment from PM but its sad that it appears the
only reason is because its likely impacting tourism and therefore jobs/income
which is likely real reason. I vacationed in Cairns (and elsewhere) in 2001
and was best 3 week vacation ever and GBR was definitely a highlight. If it
was dead then I'm not sure we would have gone there.

I almost feel that its wasted effort at this point as its like putting your
finger in a dam and it will only hold for a short time. We really need to make
a serious redesign in behavior and its hard to get any country to do anything
and with recent political changes seems less likely and Kyoto will probably
fall in short order.

~~~
shakna
We are in a seriously bad place [0] when it comes to our impact on the world.

With how politics are right now, I don't see it turning around.

[0] [http://theconversation.com/how-climate-denial-gained-a-
footh...](http://theconversation.com/how-climate-denial-gained-a-foothold-in-
the-liberal-party-and-why-it-still-wont-go-away-56013)

------
codecamper
Understanding a little science implies that you are interested in how the
world works. It also helps to be close to nature to keep that sense of
fascination. Get your mind thinking about the improbability of life in the
universe.

Then you wonder... why are we the only planet with intelligent life? Why don't
we see / hear evidence of life on other planets?

Then you realize that our planet has accomplished this amazing thing... to
balance the levels of solar energy with our native chemistry so that life can
flourish.

We know that conditions for life are the result of millions of years of
balancing. With life consuming oxygen & producing CO2.

Now we have the problem that the people in charge do not share this
fascination. They are only interested in their gain & immediate situation.

We live on a planet where if you change the thermostat just 1 degree in either
direction, massive changes occur.

It's like seeing a top that is spinning, and giving it a good swift kick.

------
akandiah
Sadly, very few politicians in Australia give a damn about it. It's all about
"jobs and growth" over here.

~~~
ant6n
That's the only thing politicians seem to care about anywhere. And strangely,
'jobs' seems always to be referring to manufacturing or construction type
jobs. Just bizarre.

~~~
codecamper
It's zombies from the 1800s. It's some sort of denial of the current state of
the world.

US, UK, & australia are all fixated on the 1950s. How good it was then. It
should be that good now.

They forget that during that time the US & allies had the only real
functioning industry. So obviously with no competitors times were going to be
good.

We are all supposed to be digging iron ore & making steel all of a sudden.
Damn it all to science. I live just once and who cares about a million years
of evolution.

The reason all this is happening is because technologists give control of
their knowledge to people who have no knowledge. We allow them to co-opt us to
their plans. It's one way to fix things. Get hard assed about handing out
technology to idiots. Have a technologist / humanist sort of president. Bill G
would be pretty good.

~~~
apocalypstyx
Freedom is (maybe?) psychologically (perhaps biologically?) untenable in
humans.

GNU/Linux ---> too much user choice

Freely shared scientific inquiry ---> technologists giv[ing] control of their
knowledge to people who have no knowledge

Everyone probably does want the iron fist in the velvet glove.

    
    
       The large majority – me included – wants to be passive and rely on an 
       efficient state apparatus to guarantee the smooth running of the entire 
       social edifice, so that I can pursue my work in peace. Walter Lippmann 
       wrote in his Public Opinion (1922) that the herd of citizens must be 
       governed by “a specialised class whose interests reach beyond the 
       locality" – this elite class is to act as a machinery of knowledge that 
       circumvents the primary defect of democracy, the impossible ideal of the 
       "omni-competent citizen". This is how our democracies function – with our consent: 
       there is no mystery in what Lippmann was saying, it is an obvious fact; the mystery 
       is that, knowing it, we play the game. We act as if we are free and freely deciding, 
       silently not only accepting but even demanding that an invisible injunction 
       (inscribed into the very form of our free speech) tells us what to do and think. 
       “People know what they want” – no, they don’t, and they don’t want to know it. 
       They need a good elite, which is why a proper politician does not only advocate people’s interests, 
       it is through him that they discover what they “really want.”
       http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2013/04/simple-courage-decision-leftist-tribute-thatcher
       

It's the "masses" who may be the least delusional: The whole point is to know
you're not in charge. The elites _actually_ believe they're in control.

    
    
       In The King's Speech the cause of the king-to-be's stuttering is precisely his inability 
       to assume his symbolic function and identify with his title. He displays little common sense, 
       seriously accepting that one is a king by divine will; and the task of the Australian coach is 
       to render him stupid enough to accept his sovereignty as natural property. In the film's key scene, 
       the coach sits on the throne. The furious king asks him how he dare do this, to which he replies: 
       "Why not? Why should you have the right to sit on this chair and me not?" The king shouts back: 
       "Because I am a king by divine right!" At which point the coach just nods with satisfaction; 
       now the king believes he is a king. The film's solution is reactionary: the king is "normalised", 
       the force of his hysterical questioning is obliterated.
       ---Slavoj Žižek
       

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays)

------
sullyj3
Phrasing like this pisses me off:

"Climate scientists argue that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
traps heat radiating from earth, creating global warming."

The words "argue that" imply that the matter is still in dispute.

~~~
adevine
Especially because the fact that increased carbon dioxide traps heat radiating
from Earth is just that: a proven physical fact. There is absolutely 0
disagreement on that from anyone who isn't a complete fraud.

There is some debate about what the end consequences of that physical fact
are, about how much feedback loops affect the overall temperature, about the
total contribution of man-made vs natural causes, etc. But saying "Climate
scientists argue ..." is like saying "Chemists argue that water is made up of
hydrogen and oxygen."

~~~
ezequiel-garzon
It is a grave disservice to climate change prevention to attribute all ills to
it. From Wikipedia [1]:

"Coral reefs are dying around the world. Human impact on coral reefs is
significant. Coral reefs are dying around the world. In particular, coral
mining, pollution (organic and non-organic), overfishing, blast fishing and
the digging of canals and access into islands and bays are serious threats to
these ecosystems."

I believe we as a global society should err on the side of caution, but I
doubt scientists like Freeman Dyson are frauds. Probably climate science is
way more complex than generally perceived, but that shouldn't lead us to
inaction. I heartily recommend [2].

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_with_co...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_with_coral_reefs)

[2] [https://www.edge.org/conversation/freeman_dyson-heretical-
th...](https://www.edge.org/conversation/freeman_dyson-heretical-thoughts-
about-science-and-society)

~~~
_coldfire
Argument to complexity is not sound logic, yes, it is complex, if there is an
issue with models or margins of error, then that issue needs to be raised, but
handwaving "complexity" helps no one.

Otherwise, well said, do agree, humans can be amazingly over-cautious with
certain matters like air-travel but with large scale phenomena like climate
change we are terribly foolhardy. There is nothing wrong with being prudent.

Regarding the Great Barrier Reef, farm runoff (sediment, nitrogen) has a
massive contribution to coral bleaching. Not mentioned once in this article.
Warmer waters do contribute but it's not enough for the scale of dieoffs seen.
It's been nearly ten years since farmers signed an agreement to reduce runoff,
so far they've achieved about 10% and are unlikely to meet 2018 targets, if
they keep going at this rate it will take 40 years to reach the stated
reduction goals. Farmers hold a lot of sway in Australian politics and I dont
see that changing anytime soon.

~~~
ezequiel-garzon
Thanks for your reply, and sorry I found it this late. I think I digressed
more than I should have. My first main point was that not every skeptic is a
fraud, as I think we can generally tell their motivations, backgrounds and
paycheck signers.

Just like you said, climate change plays a very minor in the destruction of
coral reefs, if any at all. My second point is that pretending otherwise is
not sound logic, not even smart, as it may hurt the badly needed credibility
of climate change warnings.

Moreover, there's a great deal more, as you point out, in terms of
environmental threats, than climate change. It is OK if sometimes they are
essentially independent issues.

------
caub
7 billion human is a lot, but it could still work and not destroy the planet
if people wasn't so much overconsuming resources. I think I've 10% or less of
the average human environmental impact in my area

~~~
woogiewonka
Can you plz tell my mom to stop buying me shitty clothes for holidays I didn't
ask for.

------
disposablezero
According to the best climate models: Mexico, most of the US, Spain, Italy are
completely fucked in terms of ariable land. Alaska, Ethiopia and parts of
India are projected to be the only real benefactors. When food and water run
out, Mad Max will be a comparative fairy tale.

Here's some quality videos by actual climate scientists (trigger warning:
science):

[https://youtu.be/ntOgBMgENTU](https://youtu.be/ntOgBMgENTU)

[https://youtu.be/8iEj76iX-xE](https://youtu.be/8iEj76iX-xE)

[https://youtu.be/UOm2t3QMR6k](https://youtu.be/UOm2t3QMR6k)

[https://youtu.be/iOztwk6bjjU](https://youtu.be/iOztwk6bjjU)

------
codecamper
Don't worry. This is not what is important folks. Reef schmeef. Fish! ha. who
cares about millions of years of evolution. We can wait another million years
to get it back!

What is important _right now_ is making sure that people who can barely read
who live in west Virginia can continue to count on burning coal so they can
afford a big truck.

~~~
contingencies
Agreed. Don't forget to ship them out of season foods produced through
wasteful industrial processes with special oil-linked subsidies, regularly re-
clothe them in garments from the other side of the world, and sell them
needless nick-knacks from China. Better yet, let's make sure nothing at all
lasts so we have to throw it out and buy new ones.

(Non-sarcasm: IMHO government could do many things - tax irreparable goods
heavily, subsidize low-transport or low carbon production solutions, add
sustainability to national education syllabuses, fund national and
international networks of alternate energy transportation systems (starting
with trains and boats), reward repairs, and heavily dis-incentivize fiscal
middle-men for venture funding.)

------
Rexxar
Does anyone know if it would be possible/useful to create some artificial
"cool zone" to help the coral to survive in some place in order to ease
recolonization after such events ?

------
waketheFup
A timely news story. Just watched the latest episode of Years of Living
Dangerously on NatGeo. Check it out. It explains why this is such a big deal.

