Which of these do you, personally, consider the GREATEST threat to coral reefs around the world?

• Fishing with dynamite
• Fishing with cyanide
• Coral bleaching
• Crown of thorns
• Parrot fish
• Silt runoff from rivers
• Oil mining on the reef
• Atomic bomb
• Mining by the military for construction materials
• Military bombardment
• Water pollution
• Ozone hole
• Next ice age / sea level fall / tectonic uplift
• Loss of top predator
• Loss of keystone species
• Invasive species carried in bilge water
• Shell collecting (incl. giant triton)
• Hurricane / Typhoon / Cyclone
• El Nino
• There is no threat, coral reefs have survived 440 million years
• Spear fishing
• Agricultural runoff / herbicide / insecticide / fertiliser
• Tourists

Every one of these has, at some time by some people, been considered the greatest threat to coral reefs around the world.

Name only one.

I, personally, consider the greatest threat to coral reefs around the world to be

• Next ice age / sea level fall / tectonic uplift

I’m going Atomic Bomb.

Coral bleaching.

Why one ? Are we still that simple?

poikilotherm said:

Why one ? Are we still that simple?

Several of those options are influenced by other options, so there’s not only one threat.

Divine Angel said:

poikilotherm said:

Why one ? Are we still that simple?

Several of those options are influenced by other options, so there’s not only one threat.

There can still be a greatest threat, even if they are interlinked, but we do need to define what we mean by greatest.

If we mean the most likely cause of worldwide reef degradation in the immediate future I’d say the greatest threat is not on the list.

I presume omitted intentionally.

“coral reefs have survived 440 million years”

This is misleading.

All extant corals were wiped out during the Permian-Triassic extinction event. All pre-extinction-event corals had aragonite skeletons. New corals evolved after that major extinction event, likely from a different group of cnidarians. All post-extinction corals have calcite skeletons.

There’s also a difference between biggest threat and most likely threat. Obviously atomic bomb would be the biggest event, but the most likely is pollution causing coral bleaching.

Divine Angel said:

There’s also a difference between biggest threat and most likely threat. Obviously atomic bomb would be the biggest event, but the most likely is pollution causing coral bleaching.

Man is the greatest threat. Man is also the only aid. It is up to man to decide what man wants.

Michael V said:

“coral reefs have survived 440 million years”

This is misleading.

All extant corals were wiped out during the Permian-Triassic extinction event. All pre-extinction-event corals had aragonite skeletons. New corals evolved after that major extinction event, likely from a different group of cnidarians. All post-extinction corals have calcite skeletons.

What skeletons did pre-extinctions have?

Michael V said:

“coral reefs have survived 440 million years”

This is misleading.

All extant corals were wiped out during the Permian-Triassic extinction event. All pre-extinction-event corals had aragonite skeletons. New corals evolved after that major extinction event, likely from a different group of cnidarians. All post-extinction corals have calcite skeletons.

OK, so 250 million years.

It still raises the question though, how did they survive sea level variation of +- 120 metres, and associated variation in temperatures?

This doesn’t seem to be a useful way to consider environmental threats. It’s not a contest.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

“coral reefs have survived 440 million years”

This is misleading.

All extant corals were wiped out during the Permian-Triassic extinction event. All pre-extinction-event corals had aragonite skeletons. New corals evolved after that major extinction event, likely from a different group of cnidarians. All post-extinction corals have calcite skeletons.

OK, so 250 million years.

It still raises the question though, how did they survive sea level variation of +- 120 metres, and associated variation in temperatures?

Who said they did?
The great barrier reef is way younger than that.

• Next ice age / sea level fall / tectonic uplift

Not

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

“coral reefs have survived 440 million years”

This is misleading.

All extant corals were wiped out during the Permian-Triassic extinction event. All pre-extinction-event corals had aragonite skeletons. New corals evolved after that major extinction event, likely from a different group of cnidarians. All post-extinction corals have calcite skeletons.

OK, so 250 million years.

It still raises the question though, how did they survive sea level variation of +- 120 metres, and associated variation in temperatures?

Who said they did?
The great barrier reef is way younger than that.

The Internet says it:

“The Great Barrier Reef first began to grow about 18 million years ago. Since this time, various geological events, such as Ice Ages and low seawater levels have interrupted reef growth. The reefs we see today have grown on top of older reef platforms during the last 8000 years – since the last Ice Age.”

And assuming mv is correct, the current species of coral has been around for 250 million years or so.

How many events has the Great Barrier Reef survived in which ocean temperature increased 3 degrees in a century?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

“coral reefs have survived 440 million years”

This is misleading.

All extant corals were wiped out during the Permian-Triassic extinction event. All pre-extinction-event corals had aragonite skeletons. New corals evolved after that major extinction event, likely from a different group of cnidarians. All post-extinction corals have calcite skeletons.

OK, so 250 million years.

It still raises the question though, how did they survive sea level variation of +- 120 metres, and associated variation in temperatures?

It happened slowly, over thousands of years which gave the organisms time to adapt by moving to higher or lower sealevels. The changes we are bringing are virtually happening overnight and the reefs are unable to adapt to the speed these climatic changes are taking place.

dv said:

How many events has the Great Barrier Reef survived in which ocean temperature increased 3 degrees in a century?

it has only been there 15 thousand years.

PermeateFree said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

“coral reefs have survived 440 million years”

This is misleading.

All extant corals were wiped out during the Permian-Triassic extinction event. All pre-extinction-event corals had aragonite skeletons. New corals evolved after that major extinction event, likely from a different group of cnidarians. All post-extinction corals have calcite skeletons.

OK, so 250 million years.

It still raises the question though, how did they survive sea level variation of +- 120 metres, and associated variation in temperatures?

It happened slowly, over thousands of years which gave the organisms time to adapt by moving to higher or lower sealevels. The changes we are bringing are virtually happening overnight and the reefs are unable to adapt to the speed these climatic changes are taking place.

>>Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.

Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.<<

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

Devil’s advocate mode…had the coldings been faster than the warmings? Just imagining meteor strike or traps activity might work rather fast.

buffy said:

Devil’s advocate mode…had the coldings been faster than the warmings? Just imagining meteor strike or traps activity might work rather fast.

Don’t think a meteor strike or volcanic activity would change sea levels, nor their temperature over a relatively short period that any dust would remain in the atmosphere. If it did then it would be a very large meteor and then you have a mass extinction event, which is where we are heading. Traps and the release of co2 again happen over considerable periods of time, permitting adaptation.

Tambora caused trouble for a couple of seasons at least, with fast cooling. I presume there have been other instances.

buffy said:

Tambora caused trouble for a couple of seasons at least, with fast cooling. I presume there have been other instances.

Of course there have, but the oceans cover around 70% of the planet, so need really big things to happen over a prolonged period of time to create any change.

Michael V said:

“coral reefs have survived 440 million years”

This is misleading.

All extant corals were wiped out during the Permian-Triassic extinction event. All pre-extinction-event corals had aragonite skeletons. New corals evolved after that major extinction event, likely from a different group of cnidarians. All post-extinction corals have calcite skeletons.

Very good point. The reef forming corals now are the brain corals, not the more familiar staghorn corals. I’d be interested to know when the brain corals first appeared.

“There is little evidence on which to base a hypothesis about the origin of the scleractinians; plenty is known about modern species but very little about fossil specimens, which first appeared in the record in the Middle Triassic (240 million years ago). It was not until 25 million years later that they became important reef builders, their success perhaps a result of teaming up with symbotic algae.”

So, 240-25 is 215 million years.

Another great threat to coral reefs is sponges. Sponges bore holes in coral reefs making them porous and fragile, easily broken up by storms.

I’ve seen one estimate that sponges destroy coral reefs at a third of the rate that corals build them. Which is a very fast rate of destruction.

mollwollfumble said:

Another great threat to coral reefs is sponges. Sponges bore holes in coral reefs making them porous and fragile, easily broken up by storms.

I’ve seen one estimate that sponges destroy coral reefs at a third of the rate that corals build them. Which is a very fast rate of destruction.

What about parrotfish? They eat coral and shit out sand. I have heard it said that nearly all the sand in our picture postcard tropical island beaches is due to parrotfish shit.

We just went to Moreton Bay Industry and Tourism’s event, Welcome to the Whales. On the Q&A panel featuring scientificians from the Brisbane Marine Institute (or some such), the biggest threat to the Great Barrier Reef is coral bleaching due to warmer waters as a result of climate change.

The Great Barrier Reef suffered five “death events” over the past 30,000 years as sea levels rose and fell, forcing corals to migrate land or seaward to survive, according to decade-long work by a team of international scientists.

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/great-barrier-reef-s-five-near-death-experiences-revealed-in-new-paper-20180528-p4zhwb.html

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Great Barrier Reef suffered five “death events” over the past 30,000 years as sea levels rose and fell, forcing corals to migrate land or seaward to survive, according to decade-long work by a team of international scientists.

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/great-barrier-reef-s-five-near-death-experiences-revealed-in-new-paper-20180528-p4zhwb.html

From the above article:

>>While the research revealed the past dynamism of the reef, the paper stressed the findings “provide little evidence for resilience of the Great Barrier Reef over the next few decades”.

That’s because the pace of temperature increases has been much greater in the past century, at about 0.7 degrees, compared with “a couple of degrees rise in a 10,000-year period”, Professor Webster said.

“I would not hold up this study as a beacon of hope in terms of how the reef might respond in the next 20, 50, 100 years,” he said.<<

It was a classic piece of public relations. A week before the budget, the federal government announced it was committing half-a-billion dollars to the ailing Great Barrier Reef, with the immediate aims of enhancing water quality, culling outbreaks of invasive crown of thorns starfish and boosting scientific research funds that might aid the reef’s “resilience”.

There was no mention of climate change. That should not be surprising. The Turnbull government remains at war with itself over climate and energy policy, with many of its own members openly derisive of climate science and questioning Australia’s commitment to the Paris agreement to keep rises in global average temperatures to below 2 degrees Celsius.

That cohort predictably includes former prime minister Tony Abbott and his backers.
“What we have to realise is, there’s no way we’re going to solve this problem by not involving industry.”

Publicly, the government is still supportive of Adani’s Carmichael coalmine, and the government remains roiled over the future of AGL’s Liddell power station, with pro-coal MPs urging Malcolm Turnbull to change competition laws to force the company to sell the station.

Turnbull and his environment minister, Josh Frydenberg, are walking a tightrope: trying not to poke the bear on the party’s right flank by reassuring regional Queensland of its continuing support of coal, while confronting the dire state of the reef and the many more jobs, and seats, which may be in peril on the basis of current trends.

In the past few days, we’ve found out where the government’s money to aid the reef is being directed. It’s not going to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the statutory body that’s entrusted with the reef’s custodianship and advises the government on the care and protection of the marine park.

Nor is it going to the Australian Institute of Marine Science, or the Australian Research Council’s Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies.

Instead, it’s going to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, a body with six full-time staff and five part-time staff, which generated a turnover of less than $8 million last year. The body is focused on business cooperation.

By its own description, the foundation “started with a small group of businessmen chatting at the airport while waiting for their flight, wanting to do something to help the Great Barrier Reef”. When asked, the government was not immediately able to say who these businessmen were.

The move to direct more than $443 million to this small foundation was so left-field it caught even its beneficiaries off guard. “It’s like we’ve won lotto,” chief executive Anna Marsden told Fairfax’s Peter Hannam. “We’re getting calls from a lot of friends.”

Marsden said the organisation was seeking advice on how to cope with the sudden influx of funds.

In the past few days of Senate estimates hearings, more serious questions have been raised. There was no competitive tender process, and thus no opportunity for the government’s own scientific agencies to apply for the funds. As Labor senator Kristina Keneally summed up: “I am trying to understand how … the greatest single contribution from the government to the Great Barrier Reef in Australian history went to one foundation without a tender process, without advertising, without a competitive process and, it would seem, without an invitation from the government to the foundation to apply.”

To that end, Labor has lodged a freedom of information request. Others have pointed to the foundation’s links to corporate Australia, including fossil fuel behemoths BHP, Shell and Peabody Energy, as well as key banking figures.

“God help the Barrier Reef,” was the blunt response of Professor Terry Hughes, the director of the Australian Research Council’s Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, who has been indefatigable in his scorn for untested scientific solutions such as sun-shields, underwater fans and anything that fails to address the core issues of global warming and immediate decarbonising of the economy.

Similarly, acting chief executive of the Climate Council Dr Martin Rice described the focus on water quality and culling starfish as “a golden Band-Aid solution, because it’s not really getting to the root cause of the problem with the bleaching, and that’s climate change.

“When you look at emissions, we’ve had three years of emissions rising in Australia, and any true test of effective climate policy comes down to whether our emissions are going up or down. So there is no credible energy or climate policy in Australia … emission reduction targets of 28 per cent are woefully inadequate; they’re not aligned with the science,” he said.

“If the world was to go with Australia’s Paris commitments, we would be on target for a 3 to 4 degree , and that’s devastating. We’re not going to see our iconic Great Barrier Reef survive that. And that’s not just an environmental issue; it’s an economic one.”

more..https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/environment/2018/05/26/who-the-group-awarded-443m-save-the-reef/15272568006280

sarahs mum said:

It was a classic piece of public relations. A week before the budget, the federal government announced it was committing half-a-billion dollars to the ailing Great Barrier Reef, with the immediate aims of enhancing water quality, culling outbreaks of invasive crown of thorns starfish and boosting scientific research funds that might aid the reef’s “resilience”.

There was no mention of climate change. That should not be surprising. The Turnbull government remains at war with itself over climate and energy policy, with many of its own members openly derisive of climate science and questioning Australia’s commitment to the Paris agreement to keep rises in global average temperatures to below 2 degrees Celsius.

That cohort predictably includes former prime minister Tony Abbott and his backers.
“What we have to realise is, there’s no way we’re going to solve this problem by not involving industry.”

Publicly, the government is still supportive of Adani’s Carmichael coalmine, and the government remains roiled over the future of AGL’s Liddell power station, with pro-coal MPs urging Malcolm Turnbull to change competition laws to force the company to sell the station.

Turnbull and his environment minister, Josh Frydenberg, are walking a tightrope: trying not to poke the bear on the party’s right flank by reassuring regional Queensland of its continuing support of coal, while confronting the dire state of the reef and the many more jobs, and seats, which may be in peril on the basis of current trends.

In the past few days, we’ve found out where the government’s money to aid the reef is being directed. It’s not going to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the statutory body that’s entrusted with the reef’s custodianship and advises the government on the care and protection of the marine park.

Nor is it going to the Australian Institute of Marine Science, or the Australian Research Council’s Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies.

Instead, it’s going to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, a body with six full-time staff and five part-time staff, which generated a turnover of less than $8 million last year. The body is focused on business cooperation.

By its own description, the foundation “started with a small group of businessmen chatting at the airport while waiting for their flight, wanting to do something to help the Great Barrier Reef”. When asked, the government was not immediately able to say who these businessmen were.

The move to direct more than $443 million to this small foundation was so left-field it caught even its beneficiaries off guard. “It’s like we’ve won lotto,” chief executive Anna Marsden told Fairfax’s Peter Hannam. “We’re getting calls from a lot of friends.”

Marsden said the organisation was seeking advice on how to cope with the sudden influx of funds.

In the past few days of Senate estimates hearings, more serious questions have been raised. There was no competitive tender process, and thus no opportunity for the government’s own scientific agencies to apply for the funds. As Labor senator Kristina Keneally summed up: “I am trying to understand how … the greatest single contribution from the government to the Great Barrier Reef in Australian history went to one foundation without a tender process, without advertising, without a competitive process and, it would seem, without an invitation from the government to the foundation to apply.”

To that end, Labor has lodged a freedom of information request. Others have pointed to the foundation’s links to corporate Australia, including fossil fuel behemoths BHP, Shell and Peabody Energy, as well as key banking figures.

“God help the Barrier Reef,” was the blunt response of Professor Terry Hughes, the director of the Australian Research Council’s Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, who has been indefatigable in his scorn for untested scientific solutions such as sun-shields, underwater fans and anything that fails to address the core issues of global warming and immediate decarbonising of the economy.

Similarly, acting chief executive of the Climate Council Dr Martin Rice described the focus on water quality and culling starfish as “a golden Band-Aid solution, because it’s not really getting to the root cause of the problem with the bleaching, and that’s climate change.

“When you look at emissions, we’ve had three years of emissions rising in Australia, and any true test of effective climate policy comes down to whether our emissions are going up or down. So there is no credible energy or climate policy in Australia … emission reduction targets of 28 per cent are woefully inadequate; they’re not aligned with the science,” he said.

“If the world was to go with Australia’s Paris commitments, we would be on target for a 3 to 4 degree , and that’s devastating. We’re not going to see our iconic Great Barrier Reef survive that. And that’s not just an environmental issue; it’s an economic one.”

more..https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/environment/2018/05/26/who-the-group-awarded-443m-save-the-reef/15272568006280

These people in the LNP are criminals and they should be forced out of office. Global Warming and overpopulation are by far the most important issues we have to face and all these crims do, is handfeed the greedy self-serving people to put even more money in their pockets and to sell everyone down the tube. If these people in some other field they would be sent to jail such is the seriousness of their crimes. The people should be marching on parliament to demand change, so why arn’t they?

> A week before the budget, the federal government announced it was committing half-a-billion dollars to the ailing Great Barrier Reef.

It’s a good thing we have budgets then. If that’s what it takes to fix the reef.

mollwollfumble said:

> A week before the budget, the federal government announced it was committing half-a-billion dollars to the ailing Great Barrier Reef.

It’s a good thing we have budgets then. If that’s what it takes to fix the reef.

Small bandaid solutions to fix large complicated problems. They are selling the lives of your children and grandchildren.

PermeateFree said:

. The people should be marching on parliament to demand change, so why arn’t they?

I’m a depressive. :(
And I’m stuck.

sarahs mum said:

PermeateFree said:

. The people should be marching on parliament to demand change, so why arn’t they?

I’m a depressive. :(
And I’m stuck.

There have been numerous big rallies in Australia so the people could make their feelings known. They have ranged from anti-Vietnam to the gay marriage rights, yet this issue that is far more important is hardly mentioned in anger, let alone have people actually do something about it. We are just sitting back, mostly believing the political and vested interest crap and letting it without fuss creep over us.

Hi there! remember me? bob (from black rock)

bob(from black rock) said:

Hi there! remember me? bob (from black rock)

Yes.

Welcome back bob! We assumed you’d slipped off your perch.

Bubblecar said:

Welcome back bob! We assumed you’d slipped off your perch.

Yeah so did I but I was sent back!

Bubblecar said:

Welcome back bob! We assumed you’d slipped off your perch.

Do perch swim near coral reefs?

bob(from black rock) said:

Bubblecar said:

Welcome back bob! We assumed you’d slipped off your perch.

Yeah so did I but I was sent back!

that is two Lazerii we have on the forum.

bob(from black rock) said:

Bubblecar said:

Welcome back bob! We assumed you’d slipped off your perch.

Yeah so did I but I was sent back!

That’s good to hear :)

Bubblecar said:

bob(from black rock) said:

Bubblecar said:

Welcome back bob! We assumed you’d slipped off your perch.

Yeah so did I but I was sent back!

That’s good to hear :)

But not for long by the look of things.

bob(from black rock) said:

Bubblecar said:

Welcome back bob! We assumed you’d slipped off your perch.

Yeah so did I but I was sent back!

Welcome back from me, too.