
Half Of Great Barrier Reef Lost Over Past 27 Years - olalonde
http://singularityhub.com/2012/10/13/half-of-great-barrier-reef-lost-over-past-27-years-more-to-come/
======
noiv
During same period Arctic summer sea ice extend also was reduced by 50%,
volume shrunk down to 25%. Environmental news do not spark lively discussions
here - except a data center opens in the high North. Can only guess about
reasons, may be green entrepreneurs are already more impressing at parties or
as long as net works there is no need to discuss and in the other case no
possibility.

However seeing a colorful reef turning grey is depressive on Sunday and
partially explains my mood to get voted down.

~~~
pault
Look on the bright side, if it continues to lose half its volume every 30
years, it will be here forever!

~~~
Evbn
If only the reef where infinite...

~~~
hnriot
it doesn't need to be infinite for this to hold.

------
relix
The article divides the cause of the loss as follows, in one of the first
paragraphs: 48% due to storms, 42% due to starfish, and 10% due to bleaching.

Of these, only the bleaching is a mostly direct cause of civilization. But
reading the last paragraph, apparently coastal pollution increases the
starfish growth:

> "But is there really any hope of slowing the Crown-of-thorns? While the
> adult Crown-of-thorn feeds on coral polyps, its larvae feed on
> phytoplankton. Phytoplankton, in turn, multiply in the presence of
> fertilizers and other man-made pollutants commonly found in coastal runoff.
> Simply by decreasing pollution in these areas would benefit coral growth."

Apparently, removing the starfish would have a recovering effect on the reef:

> "The study shows that in the absence of Crown-of-thorns, coral cover would
> increase at 0.89 percent per year, so even with losses due to cyclones and
> bleaching there should be slow recovery"

We should take care not to kill off one species to save another, though. The
starfish are very widely spread than the reef, but _any_ intervention should
still be carefully considered.

------
kbutler
For a more critical view of the study, see
[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/09/reef-alarmists-jump-
th...](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/09/reef-alarmists-jump-the-shark/)

\- it is a meta-study based on surveys performed more frequently on damaged
areas, by poorly trained observers

\- it asserts storm damage is increasing because of increased cyclone
intensity, but there is no measured increase in intensity

\- the cause and effect of water quality issues are significantly more
complicated than presented

It also raises the question of what benefit Australia has received from all
its previous GBR management investment. If efforts of previous decades have
been so completely ineffectual, why throw more money at it?

~~~
corporalagumbo
Googled around and seems like Anthony Watts is a noted anti-environmentalist.
His bread and butter seems to be disputing the validity of -any- study which
shows significant impacts and threats to ecosystems and/or the biosphere from
human activity.

Not saying that his criticisms are wrong, but it sounds like if anyone were
going to wave off bad news about the GBR and say 'oh it's fine, don't worry,'
it'd be him.

------
asadotzler
The reefs are already doomed. We're going to look up in 10 years and wonder
why there was so much skepticism and discounting of clear signs.

~~~
bravoyankee
Rationalization and greed blind people. And some will contest anything just to
try and sound contrarian and critical minded.

HN has its fair share of people like that.

------
lifeisstillgood
This is something that has long bothered me - HN is it's own little bubble,
despite being dedicated to everything intellectually curious or
entreprenuerial

what I would like is _perspective_ \- a top down weekly update that works as a
complete model - sort of the earth sim in SnowCrash - but for the most
important changes - wars, famines, vast new investments, politics and economic
pressures.

Something that says each week, the great barrier reef has halved _but_ it
ranks only 27th behind ...

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Isn't that what something like a newspaper or weekly magazine is trying to do?

~~~
rm999
Yes, I think so. I like the Economist's weekly updates:

<http://www.economist.com/node/21564620>

<http://www.economist.com/node/21564618>

And the economist did cover this news more thoroughly:

<http://www.economist.com/node/21564192>

~~~
Evbn
Article begins with > ON SEPTEMBER 26th Google, an internet-search firm,

And then the article describes Maps, a major business component that is not
Internet search at all.

Also, nice aptonym on Dr De'ath studying coral reef death.

