Gazette Day reports:
In the year 2016, there was a heatwave that affected many parts of the world. The extreme temperatures were especially felt in and around the continent of Australia. As a result of the heatwave, the waters around the Great Barrier Reef warmed considerably. Scientists were worried that with the oceans already warming due to global climate change, the additional heat stress might cause considerable damage to the Great Barrier Reef.
After the heatwave subsided, a team of scientists conducted tests to find out how the heatwave damaged the reef. Extensive aerial surveys were conducted. These surveys concluded that a great deal of the reef had bleaching that had killed off many parts of the reef. [...] The surveys found that 90 percent of the corals in the reef suffered at least some type of bleaching. The worst damage was on the northernmost third of the reef. In this section, much of the damage was caused by the initial rise in temperature.
The other damage occurred later. The coral reefs depend on a symbiotic relationship with a certain type of algae. Over the course of a few months after the heating event, the algae separated from the reef causing additional reef death.
During the heating event in 2016, one-third of the coral reefs in the world were bleached and damaged in some way. The reefs do have the ability to come back from this [heat-induced damage] as long as the damaging events are not too frequent.
Global warming transforms coral reef assemblages (DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0041-2) (DX)
(Score: 5, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday April 25 2018, @03:37PM (6 children)
The problem with a disagree mod is in four lines I somehow made six claims, all of which appear correct, maybe one is wrong, but surely the other five stand.
Given that "nothing changed with human nature in the last decade or two" "Aus scuba diving" "small scale" "biomass relying on coral is gonna die" are ridiculously obviously correct
So I'm guessing I'm wrong about shoreline erosion? Eh fluid mechanics is some strange stuff, I guess its sorta believable that coral-free approaches will have shorter waves. I was thinking the coral absorbs energy and rebuilds itself outta sunlight unlike rocky ocean shores, so I donno how that works on an energy balance, although I admit fluid mechanics is some strange stuff so maybe no reefs mean lower erosion after all.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 25 2018, @08:32PM (3 children)
You probably got Disagree'd (and it wasn't me, if it was me it'd have been Flamebait, since we don't have a "-1 Stupid Solipsistic Jackoff" mod...) because your post *as a gestalt* was ignorant and wrong.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 25 2018, @08:45PM (2 children)
The Boy Who Cried Bullshit?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 25 2018, @09:00PM (1 child)
s/Boy/Gal [soylentnews.org]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 25 2018, @10:24PM
I was referring to TMB, thought that was clear.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 25 2018, @09:41PM
That's a pretty big assumption. Disagreement is natural as a result. Not my mod BTW.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by edIII on Wednesday April 25 2018, @09:42PM
To be fair, your post made a statement, and then asked a question. Assuming my reading comprehension is correct, you essentially asked a question. How does a disagree mod make any sense when applied to a question?
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.