SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 25 2018, @05:07PM (4 children)
Honestly, I'd prefer it to be cited in the press before it would a paper. Those reading an article in some random magazine are more likely to need the information than those reading a scientific journal.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 25 2018, @05:45PM (3 children)
The overwhelming majority who read these articles in random magazines wouldn't bother to read the actual science and probably couldn't determine the validity factor for themselves. It has been a long while since I've done lab work and statistical analyses so it would take me quite a bit of effort go through and determine if their numbers are even vaguely reasonable. Even then without their actual data I couldn't say for sure.
I think you're just hiding your knee-jerk reaction due to "global warming" with a bunch of "I just want good science" bullshit. You're an intellectual fraud and sadly many many people can tell. If you think you are saving some dignity by being stubborn and appearing confident, well that is the realm of scam artists but in this case you're really just scamming yourself.
Oh, and feeding into the anti-science circle jerk bubble.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 25 2018, @06:02PM (2 children)
A citation to a well written news article would be preferred but a scientific paper would do if none were available. This has nothing to do with my belief in the truth of the statement. It very likely is true. But claims need to be supported or it's either shitty reporting or shitty science.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 27 2018, @03:07AM (1 child)
Ah yes, TMB the moron wanting scientific rigor from "gazette day", and from an author "with several years in the medical field—both as a practitioner and an administrator".
Here you lazy piece of crap https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/2016-ocean-heatwave-killed-30-percent-great-barrier-reef-180968844/ [smithsonianmag.com]
If you want to attack the ideas of an article at least do some research before you come off as a blowhard tool.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 27 2018, @10:01AM
You apparently don't read well. I was attacking the lack of sources being cited, as is proper in science, not the claims made.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.