Bleak outlook for coral reefs, warns researcher

[Jim_Tait]

ABC News
Last Updated:Monday, July 12, 2004. 3:35pm (AEST)

A leading coral reef researcher has warned there will be nothing left for him to study in 50 years time.
Dr John "Charlie" Veron of the Australian Institute of Marine Science has received the Darwin Medal, an international award for conservation.
Dr Veron says unless more is done to conserve reefs, global warming and other environmental factors will kill the spectacular marine habitats.
"By 2040, what is a very bad year now will be an average year and by about 2060, what is a really bad year now, will be a really good year then," he said.
"It's very good for people to understand that this is no longer something to be debated, it is reality."
"My grandchildren, if I have any, will not see coral reefs that I did, and so all this has happened in human terms very, very suddenly and it was largely predictable."

[baldyhead]

YAWN......Of course he won't be able to study it as he will most probably have died of old age....YAWN

[SeaHunt]

Nothing left for him to study in 50 years time.
How old is this guy ? Will he still be working in 50 years time? # #???
What a wank! No one know what things will be like in 50 years time , just look back 50 years and see what people were predicting. We can really only predict forward from what has gone regularly before, like I am pretty sure the sun will rise tomorrow.
Trawlers drag up woolly mamoth bones from the north sea while fishing in about 60 feet of water. During the last ice age, about 20,000 years ago these things were wandering around on dry land. Where do you think our precious great barrier reef was then?
The earth is still warming up from the last ice age and we are between ice ages. The oceans will rise significatly and then they will fall dramatically with the onset of next ice age, as they have in the past and there is nothing we can do about it , and life on this planet will adapt or perish , just like it always has. #:P

[kc]

Kind of all reminds me of that great old John O'Brien poem

"and we'll all be rooned said hanrahan in accents so forlorn, and he squated down upon his heels and chewed a piece of bark"

KC

[Kerry]

[smiley=zzz.gif] More of the good ol' instill the fear factor in to the uninformed masses, boring, done to death phobia.

All these do gooders should stand up to the plate and make a 30% reduction in bloody tourists in stead of a 30% increase but $$$$'s is the only signs they see and quite frankly as long as they get their $$$'s it's just more talk, no real action and do what they are told and keep concentrating on the carrot.

Cheers, Kerry.

[SeaHunt]

Agree Kerry, a really dedicated, true enviromentalist would not breed and if totally committed, should kill himself, because lets face it, the main problem with the environment is that there are far too many people on this planet. ;D

So come on all you fundamentalist greeny types step up to plate and do your bit , don't have kids, stop putting pressure on the environment and do yourself in. ::)

[kevy]

GOOD ON YOU GUYS, LISTEN TO THIS MOB & YOU MIGHT AS WELL END IT NOW. PRIDICTERS OF DOOM, ALA BOB BROWN.

[Jim_Tait]

All I can say is people are prepared to trust science when it is used to design aeroplanes to fly on or to develop medicine to cure ills, but when ecologist start telling society that things are crook in Toobrook and that we might have to (shock and horror) change the way we go about doing things (like destroying ecosystems, burning energy up and material consumption generally) its not acceptable - heck it might even affect the economy!! Just bloody predictors of doom etc etc

Well I hope your all right (and all us predictor are wrong), but unfortunately unlike a lot of people who keep their heads in the sand and no news is good news - I work professionally in the ecological sciences and a lot of the indicators (not just predictions but measures) are pointing toward impending ecological catastrophe - it does get me down (that’s why I need fishing to cope!!) - I've already bred two kids (just replacement value) - and I genuinely worry about their future and that of the planet - as some have said survive or perish is a natural process - in fact species have mean life expectancy of about a million years - so maybe the race is up -but I am actually an optimist who thinks that there is a lot of unrealised potential for humanity to explore yet - however I also think that if us 'intelligent rock apes' are going to have a good future we need to look after our global habitat a bit more than we are currently and sitting back with a she'll be right mate - ain't going to do it!!

Regards - Jim

[Kerry]

Until they start addressing the real issues then many of these so called "press releases" don't carry any credibility as that's about all they are and simply keeping the R&D $$ fire burning.

Science is one thing, speculation is another and in some regards all the crying wolf should be saved for IF things start to get to a stage where there's proven evidence but by then people would have heard the same old story so many times that it will simply be just the same old story.

It's ironical that they are putting up all the excuses in the world to make "their" mark but not really addressing the real affects.

They talk about run-off affecting the reef but if they blanket approve ethanol tomorrow cane farmers will hit every skerrick of available land and while some do gooders are saying gee whiz aren't we great look at us we're reducing what it is we think we are reducing but don't tell us about the extra nutrients that we've had to run into the ocean to do this.

Just in the past few days some councils have actually showed balls and refused to allow development simply for the sake of development and in many councils the stupid bastards are approving developements yet don't have the water in the system to provide these extra developments, yet these development $$ blinded councils have the hide to compliment themselves for being progressive, progressive, my ar.. fix the real issues first instead of grandstanding.

Then they turn into real hyprocrites and want to build another dam, raise another weir, drill a deeper bore but instead of fixing the real issue they simply create bigger issues.

More weirs, more dams, less water, more developments, changed creek/river patterns all equate to affecting what happens in the sea and it's the type of person that votes for zoning yet keeps pouring water and fertilizer on the manicured front lawn that really get up some people's nose.

Drought on the land, drought on the water and really one doesn't have to be a scientist to realize this.

Really when some start addressing the real issues then others might in fact start to take them serious but while peter steals from paul then all their rhetoric means jack.

The hyprocritical attitude and approach of the so called "inert" tourist industry needs to be jolted into reality and quickly instead of living in their high and mighty castles.

Several years ago GBRMPA did the rounds looking for "things" they could get their hands on, things that would make them money, things that would make them self funding (as directed by the government) and basically since that time GBRMPA acquired area that the State government should never have allowed, areas that do not reflect the "impression" of the GBR, areas that are miles in any direction from the reef, areas that GBRMPA will use for their own purpose and in times to come don't be surprised with what they might do with some of these areas.

Effectively any man made structure within the GBRMP can be challenged by them as far as royalities etc and already we are seeing GBRMPA doing what some expected GBRMPA to do. State run facilities can now longer dredge harbours and do what dredges do, dump out to sea, now GBRMPA sea, even though the stuff that is being dredged actually come from GBRMPA controlled areas in the first place. Can't dump back in the ocean, where it actually came from so now it has to be dumped on land, so they have to dump it on land. A very ecological decision isn't it? # #

So lets not be selective, lets actually see ALL the reports and take ALL the evidence into account and pertinent evidence that applies to the issues and lets strta addressing the real issues instead of group hug seminars, backslapping and press releases that really mean what?

Cheers, Kerry.
# #

[dazza]

hi all,
interesting threads and discussions guy's. have been following them with interest.

Jim,
i don't think too many people would disagree that the reef needs to be managed responsibly.
the thing that gets up my nose is the bullshit and misinformation that has been spread by gbrmpa and the various green groups and scientists.

eg, not adressing tourist impact. i have done a bit of diving on the reefs around cairns and have seen divers flail all over delecate corals.
seems to me that they are happy to collect reef tax, but ignore the impact of tourists.
one of the reasons given for green zones is to reduce boat strike on turtles and dugong- you can still traverse a green zone?? how is that going to reduce boat strike.
i could go on

the more i read about this issue the harder the "facts" are to swallow.

i have a bit of trouble comming to terms with the scientists who are given grants to provide research for gbrmpa- who would bite the hand that feeds them?
seem to remember scientists producing "scientific evidence" for cigarette companies years ago- ie smoking is good for you.
another recent example is the pharmaceutical company who did not publish adverse drug trial results, but published one positive one and said their product is ok.

we will never know all of the research gbrmpa choose to publish or sweep under the carpet. i can really smell a rat though.

would be interesting to see how much funding gbrmpa gives to tha aust institute of marine science and james cook uni for example.

my two bob, for what it is worth
cheers
dazza

[Kerry]

Really it's quite amazing the do as we say not as we do attitude of thise types of organisations and their followers.

A very close example is Victoria, same story, similar zoning, same headlines, same press releases, same scientific claims, similar nobs supporting the banning of fishing and fishing ONLY, people being dragged through the courts for so called illegally fishing, what with what were extremely poor maps, very poor signage that inadequately highlighted the actual boundaries to the average boatie with any simplicity, all the warm and fuzzy gut wrenching brochures about the protection of the decreasing and unique marine life blah blah blah you know the type of stuff ....

AND less than 2 years on

the Victorian government basically bulldozes a claytons EIS through to BLAST the cr.. out of the place so as to deepen the channel for shipping. So much for the warm and fuzzy little leafy sea dragons, KA BOOOOoooom but does politics or politicans give a rats, unless rats are worth $$$'s, votes then no way.

Really one gets a little sceptical of all the rubbish pushed through the channels to the masses.

Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear, something that should be applied to all so called scientific claims otherwise it's just a do as we say not as we do mentallity.

Cheers, Kerry.
# #

[Gazza]

"It was previously believed the absence of significant change in sea temperature in the tropics would prevent accurate otolith assessments.
"We have found that is not the case, and we are now coming up with a lot of accurate information," Dr Begg said.
Even small cod, previously thought to live only a few years, are reaching 30 to 40.
With Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority green zones now banning fishing, it was possible some reef fish such as red bass would make 60 or 70. "
----------------------------------------
Jim, this incompetent FOOL is getting accolades from his misguided mates , for saying that ???

I'm shocked :o :o , this fool wasn't howled down or forced to resign. >:(

And now this....... "Bleak outlook" cry.
Their educated solution won't hold water, but the treasury chest will be full, for the next "revealation" of "what we didn't know before" self-sustaining theories.

Makes me forever wonder ,what these guys did all day ,to be so wrong or not-know most of the time.

[PinHead]

"I work professionally in the ecological sciences and a lot of the indicators (not just predictions but measures) are pointing toward impending ecological catastrophe "

What are these indicators Jim??

And please don't go into temps rising or dropping casuing damage..that is also a load of crap.

[Jim_Tait]

Pinhead,

the indicators I was referring to are ecological ones at scales from local to global. If you think 'temps droping or rising causing damage ....is crap' etc I'm probably pushing the proverbial up hill to inform you about anything because you choose to be as 'aware' as you are.

Temperature change is already being measured globally and it is driving climate change. There is a global scientific concensus on that. What can I say the people who study it are measuring it and I've got no reason to not believe their data). Climate is a key determinant of ecosystem location, structure and function. Predicted rapid changes in global climatic regimes will transform ecosystem condition, composition and processes. Elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 and the predicted rate of climatic change are beyond the evolutionary experience of Homo sapiens sapiens - i wont cite papers because you'll probably say they're 'crap' as well - but you find the references that say its crap (besides your own opinion like) and we'll take it from there.

While your doing a few literature searches on the web you can also find some info on things like:

„X CO2 and other greenhouse gas concentrations in atmosphere (pre-industrial to now)
„X Rate of temperature / climate / sea level change
„X Rainfall / stream flow trends per decade (east coast, SW Aust, Global)
„X Rate of species loss / extinction (global and Australian)
„X UV radiation status and trend (ozone hole)
„X Human population size (unprecedented), rate of growth and projected
„X % exploitation global fisheries
„X % area intensive land use per river basin (global & australian)
„X Area of anoxia in oceans
„X % area exposed / b horizon subsoil in rangelands
„X % loss of floodplain wetlands
„X number, area of ecosystem dominated by exotic species
„X area of land mass ecosystem affected by acid rain (global)
„X length, area, number of ecosystems affected by nitrogen deposition (global)
„X % native vegetation / native ecosystem cover per continent
„X % allocation of global surface water supplies
„X % area dryland salinity existing and projected
„X per capita energy consumption and growth

Once you've got your own facts together (so as its not all my crap) we can take the discussion forward.

Here's to prooving it is all crap ???

[kc]

Jim it's a steep hill & a sharp stick you are using. For a scentist to cough up such as motherhood statement about what it will be like in 50 years and all the coral will be gone is pretty "unscentific". For every one who preaches doom and gloom another will tell you that Coral Reefs are pretty adaptable structures and the rate that corals lay down their calcifcation (grow) actually increases as water temperature rises. Far from destroying coral reefs any global warming (& without doubt the jury is still out on this one...ref David Bellamy) will actually enhance reef communities.

That issue aside what you are wading into on this chatboard is a cross section of recreational fishers who have become typically sick of being made the scapegoats for a government desperate to sure up its green credentials. Just a glace at the very list of impact issues and examples you quote above. What impact does recreational fishing have on these. You will, by now, have read Dr Strack and Tony Aylings research papers which totally bedunk the overfishing myth about the GBR and yet, despite these studies being in the hands of GBRMPA & the Government we still get screwed.

They thought recreational fishers were a soft touch. We would bitch and whinge but so what!! It assisted the governments great "seen to be green" campaign, got organisations like the WWF coming out in support of the Libbs (that must have hurt) and the vast majority of Australians just accepted at face value that the GBR was in dire straights and banning fishing was a key initiative in saving it. The GBR is not in dire straights....recreational fishing & the businesses which support it are! This ###### saying in 50 years time it will be all over is really just too over the top. I have lived on the reef for just over 20 years...not long in the grand scheme of things but a while relative to recent history AND THE ONLY AREAS I SEE BEING EFFECTED ARE THE AREAS USED BY HIGH VISITATION TOURISM OPERATIONS & in reality, in 1 of the 2 most popular tourism destinations on the GBR it is still less than 1% of the region.

Now looking at your list...which ones do "we impact on? & what has GBRMPA , by effectively killing off recreational fishing, really done to ensure the long term health of the GBR?



X CO2 and other greenhouse gas concentrations in atmosphere (pre-industrial to now)
„X Rate of temperature / climate / sea level change
„X Rainfall / stream flow trends per decade (east coast, SW Aust, Global)
„X Rate of species loss / extinction (global and Australian)
„X UV radiation status and trend (ozone hole)
„X Human population size (unprecedented), rate of growth and projected
„X % exploitation global fisheries
„X % area intensive land use per river basin (global & australian)
„X Area of anoxia in oceans
„X % area exposed / b horizon subsoil in rangelands
„X % loss of floodplain wetlands
„X number, area of ecosystem dominated by exotic species
„X area of land mass ecosystem affected by acid rain (global)
„X length, area, number of ecosystems affected by nitrogen deposition (global)
„X % native vegetation / native ecosystem cover per continent
„X % allocation of global surface water supplies
„X % area dryland salinity existing and projected
„X per capita energy consumption and growth


Hmmmm! Can't find one, can you?? You have mentioned the expolitation of global fisheries but I don't think this has any legs on the GBR. Absolutely yes some fisheries on a world wide level are overexploited and doomed. In Qld at least the regulators have had the brains (& the support of rec fishers) to reverse destructive trends on fish like barra which really did need management protection regimes, but the GBR thing is a publicity stunt more about "jobs for the boys" and votes for the government than real change.

What they didn't think would happen is that votes for the government would end up being votes for the fishing party!!

Regards

KC

Regards

KC

[Jim_Tait]

KC,

the response I provided was not specifically in regard to the state of the reef, the debate on this string had gone towards a broader argument - Pinhead specifically questioned me on what the indicator / measures were regarding an impending ecological crisis.

Some of these are what I have listed.

Regards the papers you provided me I wouldn't jump to conclusions on what they do or don't prove as I will read a bit more widely before I respond to their assertions or al least the broader interpretations your affording them ( ie uselessness of green zones).

Seeing how you have demonstrated a keeness for literature I'd suggest you actually go a read a bit more of the climate change literature (i.e. AGO publication Science of climate change in Australia) before you readily claim that the reasearcher concerns for the reef 50 years from now are 'over the top'. I don't feel that the jury is still out on global warming and climate change - the nature and extent (ie predicticted) cliamte change I'd admit is still a bit rubbery - but the question of whether we are experienceingh global warming and climate change is not in doubt (it has been measured to date, as has sea level rise) and only the flat earth society and those funded by exon etc are claiming otherwise.

Regards Jim.

[nulla]

For those who want to read the argument that global warming and sea level rises are not happening to the extent the 'doom sayers' are sprouting the following two sites are worth a read

http://www.john-daly.com

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/

For those that want info on how rec fishing is impacting on either of these I have no idea where to look. Perhaps someone else can explain??????

[Jim_Tait]

Nulla,

at the end of the day you make a precautionary call based on available information and your own personal experiences / observations. Mt reading and observations lead me to a conclusion that climate change is happening - though I don't think we have identified all the mechanisms - albedo effects for instance probably play a lot bigger role than we currently grant them.

Personally I do tend to be influenced more by those with the vested interests of ecosystems and biodiversity at heart rather than those concerned about our economy's right to cheap (fossil fuel) energy - and others(check a bit deeper on your Lavoisier Group) rights to dig it up / sell it.

I think the jury is in regarding climate change, reports available at http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/science/
present information in a factual non alarmist way. That is not to say that I think we know all about how climate change will unfold - the planet has a lot of homeostatic feed back mechanisms we haven’t even begun to understand so it may not get as bad as predicted, alternatively many natural systems are prone to cascading collapse when disturbed beyond critical thresholds - so it could also be worse / faster than predicted.

I don't work at global scales - more usually regional or catchment - but considering the impacts of humans on ecosystem processes documented at these scales my intuition is that global scale system process impacts are also being driven by the material and energy demands of the 6 billion + humans now on the planet and that burning millions of years of accumulated fossil fuel energy in a couple of centauries is not a 'sustainable' practice and that the exponential increase of Co2 concentrations in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution - might just somehow be related to it!

Regards - Jim.

[SeaHunt]

You're probably right Jim, but there is nothing YOU can do about it.
So you should just go fishing and forget about it. ;)

[nulla]

Jim

I agree with SeaHunt - we should both go fishing.

I don't think Ausfish is the place for a discussion on the albedo effects or whether global warming is happening or not. I am however interested in your thoughts on info on the two web sites I mentioned. Perhaps you could email me at NullaOZ@hotmail.com to continue this discussion away from Ausfish.

There is two sides to every argument and I only listed the web-sites in case someone was interested in the other side of the debate which gets little publicity.

Nulla

[PinHead]

"I work professionally in the ecological sciences and a lot of the indicators (not just predictions but measures) are pointing toward impending ecological catastrophe "

You made the above statement Jim...I am wanting you to justify that statement. An ecological catastrophe? What is that ? No vegetation? No water? Massive droughts or floods?

I believe that the earth works in cyclical environmental ways..from an ice age..warms up..then cools again...now how can anyone alive now know what state we are in, in this cycle?
We cannot...we are making assumptions that things will change which will be detrimental to our lifestyle as we have it now. It all works in cycles...sure..there may be ecological catastrophe on the way but there is nothing we can do about it..Mother Nature is far more powerful than anything man has ever produced..you only have to witness the strength of tornadoes, hurricanes and earthquakes etc. Nothing lasts forever and neither will the earth as we have known it and know it now...no amount of "scientific reasearch", no amount of money ..nothing.

All these dangerous gases talked about..do you remember when Mt. St Helens erupted...do you know what that one mountain spewed out? It was something akin to running every car on the planet non stop for about 30 years. So I will leave the scientists to dabble in their numbers and try and scare the masses..me..i ama going to live my life and enjoy it.

I don't have to find any facts regarding anything you said..you have not justified your first statement..I have justified my opinions..I don't care..i am going to live my life for what it is..a few brief years on the planet and it is going to be one hell of a lot of fun.

[kc]

Hi Jim,

I've just spent an hour or so browsing through the web links above. An overview conclusion is that the lavosier site has a clear anti-green house agenda which is purely economically driven, The Australian Government site...is the actual greenhouse department?? Didn't even know we had one, and lets face it they are in the business of driving the greenhouse theory. That's their job. Of the 3 sites the John Daly site appears (appears!! might not actually be) the most informative and broadbased of the 3. It seems to give pros and cons and appears to have a much wider and science based background.....all in all it confuses the hell out of me. Who do we believe. One thing is absolutely sure. Lots of people are making a living out of the business of the greenhouse effect....me, all I really want to do is just enjoy my fishing, enjoy my life and not feel so violated by the government and its lackies in organisations like GBRMPA. If greenhouse is a con job it is a ripper, because they have sucked in the whole world and made research science a real growth industry. GBRMPA have to a degree pulled such a stunt on the Australian public. Convince them the reef is dying, overfishing is one of the main causes and then be in a position to up its budget allocation and boost research capabilities employing a heap more researchers all looking for proof that doom and gloom is just around the corner!! It's hard not to be sceptical when this is happening right under our noses. In reality I'm just too burnt out by the phony sceince of RAP to really accept the word of any marine researcher these days...like the comment about all the coral being dead within 50 years which started this post in the first place. It just reeked of the same sensationalist platitudes we have been hearing for the last 15 years and the media just lap it up. At the end of the day I can not remember anyone in the research community appearing in the media saying all is well. Plenty to say the sky is falling in. Either that means the sky really is falling in or the media and research community have a vested interest in bad news, never good!!

Regards

KC

Regards

KC

[Jim_Tait]

Hey Guys,

thank god (& gaia) for fishing - agree we should get together and do more of it. Don't want you to get the wrong impression of me cause I dont think I am really a dooms dayer. In my profession you have to be an optimist or you would neck yourself daily!

Agree that there are many in science that push the narrows that serve their vested $ or profesional interests in fact it 'sh**ts me to tears' the amount of science that gets done for academic kudos and number of publications rather than practical on-ground management outcomes ( especially when there are so many 'ecological catasrophes' happening). However, it also distresses me if (1) people think all greeny concerns are bull sh**t or (2) that there is nothing we can do about it.

Most (not all - like any mob) greenies are genuine people motivated by heart felt concerns for the future of the earth's ecosystems and species and for people to dismiss such concerns out of hand as BS doesn't help address the issues we need to.

The first thing we can do is to admit the need for change and then communicate that through to government, corporations, industry via ballot boxes, consumer purchasing power etc

Per capita material consumption is one of the greatest challenges for humanity to get onto a more sustainable footing, but we equate it so much with quality of life that we are unlikely to be weaned off it unless we've got attractive alternatives on offer.

For my two bobs worth I reakon we could develop a society which replaced a material consumption based 'quality of life' with things like spirituality (however individuals interpret it i.e. could mean more communing with nature), the arts and nature based recreation (that where fishing comes in!). All can help sustain a 'high quality of life' without costing the earth if practiced appropriately.

With better development of alternative energy sources we wouldn't even necessarily have to give up a lot of the material trappings of current society. However, we have to make it happen. If not driven by public pressure and governments - corporations are unlikely to start supplying alternative technologies until the last barrel of crude / tonne of coal is sold.

Anyway enough soap boxing - I'll try and stick to rec fishing focussed posts.

I'll get back to you KC re the reef fishing literature I'm not to proud to admit I've been wrong if the evidence shows me thats the case. The coral trout literature (you provided) seems to certainly suggest that there is no substantial fishing pressure knocking them around - but there is more to the merits of green zones than the management of that one species.

Regards - Jim

[kc]

Fair call Jim,

at least we can have a reasoned debate with you.....past "members"' have been a bit "testing" to say the least but still every good debate needs both sides of the coin.

If you have followed past threads The Fishing Party (Qld) is not oppossed to green zones as such, there are clearly some areas which this type of protection will produce good outcomes. What we are against is the way they have been implimented, the lack of science behind the locations and the lack of involvement in the process we (the rec fishing community of NQ) were allowed to have.

We support Pink zones (total exclusion areas) where a need for protection can be demostrated...we don't like being made the convenient scapegoat while other damaging practices are allowed to continue unchecked.

For a whole raft of reasons with good sound scientific background, we support split reefs (as reflected in our policy document) and we have a lot of fairly green/environmentally driven agendas. In truth we have more in common with the green movement that either of the major parties....it is just the pointy end of the green movement we have a problem with and unfortunately it is this end of the green movement which has the ear of the government.

What do you think of the John Daly web site?? I would appreciate your opinion.

Regards

KC

[Kerry]

There appears this growing admission that they have actually got things wrong to the point of totally underestimating the "real" affect these zonings are already having on people.

One comment is that they are taking more interest in the reef/fish than in the people and that appears a fair comment.

Cheers, Kerry.

[baldyhead]

My Doctor told me the other day that if we consult 13 Doctors with the one complaint we will get 13 different opinions...... I asked him about scientists....he laughed and said....." The same goes for them too ....but in triplicate " ;D