PDA

View Full Version : Barrier Reef to die in 20 years!!!!!!!



macdwp01
13-02-2005, 09:13 PM
Too late to save the reef
By Melissa Fyfe
Environment reporter
February 12, 2005

Page Tools
Email to a friend Printer format
Photo: Simon O'Dwyer

The Great Barrier Reef's coral could disappear in as little as 20 years as sea temperatures rise faster than expected, a world expert on coral and climate change has warned.

Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, director of the Centre for Marine Studies at the University of Queensland, says bleaching will occur and coral will die regardless of what happens in the battle against global warming.

"It is shocking to wake up and realise we really are in a desperate time," he said. "We may see a complete devastation of coral communities on the reef and a major change to the pristine values, which at the moment are our pride and joy.

"We are likely to see corals rapidly disappear from great parts of the Barrier Reef, as it has already from large parts of the Caribbean."

The warning comes as The Age begins a three-part series on the Kyoto Protocol, which becomes international law on Wednesday.

Marine scientists are closely watching the coral, hoping the widespread bleaching of 1998 and 2002 are not repeated. In 1998, 16 per cent of the world's coral died after rising sea temperatures caused mass bleaching on almost every reef.

Advertisement
Advertisement"We now have less time left," said Professor Hoegh-Guldberg. "Across the globe we should be rallying around as though we are facing a confrontation like a world war."

Coral has a small tolerance for rises in sea temperatures. A rise of one degree means that the tiny algae that live in the coral polyps are expelled, leaving coral white or "bleached". If this happens repeatedly, or for long periods, the coral dies.

Most scientists now agree that greenhouse gases from industry, electricity use and cars have caused the planet to warm 0.6 degrees in the past century. Because the gases can live in the atmosphere for 50 to 200 years, another increase in warming is already locked in, regardless of action on cutting back pollution.

The latest figures from NASA say this warming - if we stopped all emissions as of today - will be an extra 0.6 degrees by 2030, bringing the global average rise to at least 1.2 degrees. Many scientists are discussing how greenhouse gases may be stabilised to halt warming at two degrees above the long-term average. The most pessimistic scenario from the United Nations sees a warming of 5.8 degrees by the century's end.

"There are impacts in the pipeline, due to the inertia of the climate system. In 20 years' time, bleaching is highly likely to be annual and that will cause shallow-water corals to be in decline," said Professor Hoegh-Guldberg, who is leading a $20 million study into coral bleaching mostly funded by the World Bank.


Boats on the Great Barrier Reef moor around a pontoon which has an adjoining five-metre by five-metre shadecloth placed on the surface of the ocean to reduce light which exacerbates heat stress on coral.
Photo:Simon O'Dwyer
"We need to start working out how we can help people who rely on it for their income. It's really quite a stunning fact."

Modelling by marine scientists shows that coral regularly bleaches when global temperatures rise between one and two degrees, but it may recover in some summers when bleaching does not occur. At two degrees and above, coral bleaches every year - with most dying off. If a remnant population managed to survive and carbon dioxide was stabilised in the atmosphere, "we will get our beautiful coral reefs back in a couple of hundred years", Professor Hoegh-Guldberg said.

The marine scientist said the reef was the "canary in the coalmine" of global climate change. "We have this big canary off our coast and it is starting to show signs it is about to drop off the perch," he said.

Controversially, the professor said Australia should revisit the debate about nuclear power, which produces only a tiny amount of greenhouse gases compared with coal-fired plants. Environment groups are against nuclear power because of its toxic waste and insist that cuts in emissions can be achieved without resorting to nuclear power.

But Professor Hoegh-Guldberg disagrees. "I am afraid we are looking at a nuclear rescue. It may be the only way we can find the energy to keep society running while we seek other solutions," he said.

Less than a week before the Kyoto Protocol becomes international law, Professor Hoegh-Guldberg called for leadership on the global warming issue.

His ground-breaking work in 1999 revealed that reefs have only a 50-year window before damage from climate change sets in. His latest warning revises that down to 20 years.

The threat of climate change is now being taken seriously by snorkel tour operators. Quicksilver Connections, which operates from Port Douglas, is working with scientists from the University of Queensland to study coral.

In an Australian-first, three five-metre by five-metre floating shadecloths have been placed near the company's pontoon at Agincourt reef. It is designed to reduce light on the coral, which exacerbates heat stress.

Researcher Eric Strom hopes it may help the coral recover. "This is never going to be a large-scale thing," said the University of Queensland marine studies student. "You can't put a roof over the reef. But it makes sense at an industry scale."

Quicksilver Connections marine biologist Phil Laycock said: "We can't control the big-picture global warming issues but we can look at ways to protect corals in the event of some of the dire predictions."

A conference of international climate change scientists last week heard other bad news for the world's reefs. Researchers from Britain's Plymouth Marine Laboratory warned that oceans were turning acidic after absorbing about half the 800 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide humans have put in the atmosphere. "The whole composition of life in the oceans will change," said Carol Turley, the laboratory's head of science.

dasher
13-02-2005, 09:26 PM
Mac you are prob rite saying the ozone thing is the main prob, but the other areas creating the prob must be addressed also, or else it is all pointless mate. ;)

dasher
13-02-2005, 09:35 PM
Ironic isn't it, not one word about the nitrates etc. from land use. ??? ??? ???

macdwp01
13-02-2005, 09:58 PM
Mate with all your respect, i think that problem has minium effect. This problem is much more serious.

PinHead
14-02-2005, 01:19 AM
Mac you are prob rite saying the ozone thing is the main prob, but the other areas creating the prob must be addressed also, or else it is all pointless mate. ;)

That article was referring to global warming...not the supposed hole in the ozone layer...they are totally separate items.

Gazza
14-02-2005, 01:52 AM
I think it means we have less than 20 years to remove the fish ,or start saving for a global air-conditioner ,or get a big bilge pump ,for when the icecaps melt , and we all drown ???

Sideshow_Cod
14-02-2005, 02:42 AM
Hate to spoil the party, 8) but....mother nature has been screwing with global warming since time began. One major volcanic eruption which we havent seen the likes of in thousands of years{not long really} has more effect than one hundred years of industrialisation.
Not saying we shouldnt take measures to limit what we do to the ocean/earth as people and that I,m not concerned about the coral or any reef for that matter,,,,but I,m not PANICING just yet.
I suppose we will have to give these scientests some more money. ::)
.SHADE CLOTH. ;D. sounds like putting a bandaid on an axe wound.

Gazza
14-02-2005, 03:12 AM
I suppose we will have to give these scientists some more money. ::)
.SHADE CLOTH. ;D

Nahhh , that's a stupid idea mate :D
Be cheaper to import that equator coral.
Simply arrange for the illegal fishing dudes to pick up a boatload of equator coral ,and then they can take our fish ???

Simple ;D

luigi
14-02-2005, 06:27 AM
Hey, we've lost 33% of the reef thanks to GBRMPA >:(. now aboriginal groups weant exclusive access to the rest. [smiley=bandana.gif] [smiley=jester.gif]

Reef dead in 20 years?? Who cares?? Serve the buggers right!! [smiley=end.gif]

Dug
14-02-2005, 07:02 AM
Just think of all those new surf beaches up and down the Queensland coast. Makes you wonder if the property developers did not have a hand in this :-X

No need to worry about global warming just evolve gills quickly Genetic engineering and gene splicing should save us!

PS Luigi, seriously, I care!

Fishinmishin
14-02-2005, 12:16 PM
Humans are the most destuctive force this planet has to combat in one form or another. Only one species of life (out of the billions) on the planet that can ultimately decide the fate of all the others. Pity we are to stupid and greedy to make decisions in the best interest of it all until it directly affects us with no easy way out. Even then we will still use token gestures until we are left to suffer our fate. [smiley=furious.gif] [smiley=end.gif] [smiley=end.gif] [smiley=helpa.gif]

NQCairns
14-02-2005, 02:21 PM
I wonder how many of the same cycles the reef has been through in the past 150,000 years ???. More scientists on the money/contract period trail again.
Really ::) treat it for what it is ONE SCIENTIST'S opinion!! Crikey I know of two people who if they had listened to their doctor would be dead! and one family member who would be in a bad way if we did listen as well.
Our volcano's pump out more greenhouse gasses than we do! and have done so for eons! How are we going to plug them all up. Phoey. It's all such a crock of s#*t. nq

PS luigi I like your thinking ;D ;D

devocean
14-02-2005, 03:59 PM
The reef will not die. As the water gets warmer the reef and it inhgabitant will slowly move (yes grow as it is right now) further south to colder water.
Marine coraldwelling fish have already strated moving south and some species have been found as south as Sydney and below. More and more coral trout captures are becoming more frequent in southern waters.

Coral also has the ability to adapt to change. I have seen coral bleaching at its worst and then two years later you go back to the same spot and its all back alive. That article is a crock of shite.

What we need to worry about is fertiliser run off which increases algae growth which will kill our reef. This is already happening everywhere in Bowen in the inshore reefs. The real problem with this is that fish really dont need live coral to live but they do need structure whicjh ypu can get from dead coral. However algae infested coral is a different story. Think about it

Dug
14-02-2005, 05:02 PM
YEP! Nemo's Dad and Dory managed to swim all the way to Sydney in a recent documentary I saw! ;D


Seriously again; Yes, mass extinctions are a cyclic thing they are followed by mass evolution. it looks like Blinky the three eyed fish may turn up sooner rather than later.

bobby777888
14-02-2005, 05:17 PM
[/i][i]Coral also has the ability to adapt to change. - devocean..... this is true but... the corals that can adapt to the rapid temperature rise are extrmely dull, the more pretty corals just die off. the fertiliser run offs need to be ruduced. there was an article in austrailain geograpohic about this issue - the article is a must for any person who is seriously concerned about the great barrier reef. i will try to find issue the article was writtin in and i will post it later.

nonibbles
14-02-2005, 06:28 PM
Isn't it VERY timely that this report coincides with the enactment of the kyoto agreement and the push to get US and AUS to sign on the dotted line. #I agree with NQCairns, this is one scientists opinion! #I've never heard this person, so just because they are a scientist (ie one who studies - I can call myself a scientist!) we suddenly believe their claims based on theories also known as unproven guesses based upon all the percieved holes in their own homemade swiss cheese lining up! #Horsesh&*! #Those who aren't prepared to question everything just bend over now.
Even if the article is peer reviewed it would still suffer from bias associated with groupthink. #Don't allow this crap to bother you. #The scary part is our government likes to believe it though because they don't want to put the money into research that may refute it - its too hard for them and as it stands someone else has done the proof for them. #The spin off of course is that they can close more areas or otherwise heavily restrict use of the GBR and claim income on rediculous revenue raising fines etc.
Another question - does this mean that in 20years we will see all zoning on the GBR removed due to their being nothing to protect ? # :-/ :-X
then their would be no need for GBRMPA - well there's a positive. ;)
I am so sick of this crap!

kc
15-02-2005, 05:33 AM
nonibbles......here..here

KC

SeaHunt
15-02-2005, 06:40 AM
Yes the GBRMPA has got their finger on the pulse alright, all they have done is ban rec fishing on the reef. That will save it for sure. # ::)
Every cloud has a silver lining, if it does disappear in 20 years, at least all those arseholes will be out of a job.

There is only one significant environmental threat on this planet and that is man, yet we spend billions trying to save every last one of them. #???

macdwp01
15-02-2005, 03:09 PM
I think personally that a hole type of different things have to be done in order to protect the reef. Not just the coral, the animal biodiversity and all the extras. There is no magical thing that we can do to all of a sudden save the reef. In my opinion the reef is on borrowed time, when that time runs out is anyone's guess but if i was a betting man i'd say the reef will eventually die off due to man's pollution and mistakes.

nonibbles
15-02-2005, 03:18 PM
Or natural selection & evolution if you believe in theories.

Sideshow_Cod
15-02-2005, 03:25 PM
the shadecloth idea still cracks me up. [smiley=laugh.gif] :D ;D :o :) ;D ::) [smiley=happy2.gif]

Burley_Boy
15-02-2005, 05:09 PM
That comment about quick regeneration after bleaching or damage is interesting as I heard that different corals grow at very different speeds, so I'd assume then that regenerated coral would consist of only the quick growing stuff??? Hope its good looking stuff!

Interesting to read Ern Grants notes about the coral reports he did in the 70's that showed no permanent damage after crude oil spills, yet the info never came out in his reports probably due to the politics at the time...

We're mushrooms and react to the fertilizer we are fed.... hope they feed us the right stuff!
.....................
Actually maybe crude oil is the solution! Beats shade cloth and it doesn't do any damage right! ;D

Mick
16-02-2005, 05:15 AM
Why is the sky blue? Why is my bottom itchy?

NQCairns
16-02-2005, 08:31 AM
Sideshow bugger the shadecloth isnt that stuff a landfill risk (demcomposition wise!) looks like whats needed is a few extra PPM of silt to reach the middle reef and cloud it up a bit.
Slowly the logic becomes clearer, us recfisherman were patsies for urban and farm runnoff claims - GBRMPA and clan want it and they need it to save the reef!!
No wonder they tried to pretend there was protection in recfishing lockouts, less experienced reef visitors to blow the whistle on their planned future dump truck barges ;D
Well it's the best explanation so far!!! ??? ???