The Great Great Barrier Reef Swindle

[fishingjew]

By Peter Ridd

Peter Ridd is a Reader in Physics at James Cook University specialising in Marine Physics. He is also a scientific adviser to the Australian Environment Foundation.



Closer to home, there is a swindle by scientists, politicians and most green organisations regarding the health of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR). We are told that the reef is a third of the way to ecological extinction, is being smothered by sediments, is polluted by nutrients and pesticides, and is being cooked by global warming. Some scientists and organisations give the reef only a couple of decades before it is finished.


In the light of all this dismal news comes a new study by Scientists from the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) which indicates that the corals are more tolerant to rising waters temperatures than first thought by most people.


Under conditions of extremely high water temperature, corals expel the symbiotic algae called zooxanthelae that reside within the polyp making them appear bleached white. Some coral die from this bleaching and there have recently been some major mass bleaching events in the Great Barrier Reef and around the world, particularly in 1998 and 2002. The AIMS work shows that the corals can adapt to rising water temperatures by using strains of zooxanthelae that make them tolerant to higher temperatures.


In biological circles, it is common to compare coral reefs to canaries, i.e. beautiful and delicate organisms that are easily killed. The analogy is pushed further by claiming that, just as canaries were used to detect gas in coal mines, coral reefs are the canaries of the world and their death is a first indication of our apocalyptic greenhouse future. The bleaching events of 1998 and 2002 were our warning. Heed them now or retribution will be visited upon us.


In fact a more appropriate creature with which to compare corals would be cockroaches - at least for their ability to survive. If our future brings us total self-annihilation by nuclear war, pollution or global warming, my bet is that both cockroaches and corals will survive.


Their track-record is impressive. Corals have survived 300 million years of massively varying climate both much warmer and much cooler than today, far higher CO2 levels than we see today, and enormous sea level changes. Corals saw the dinosaurs come and go, and cruised through mass extinction events that left so many other organisms as no more than a part of the fossil record.


Corals are particularly well adapted to temperature changes and in general, the warmer the better. It seems odd that coral scientists are worrying about global warming because this is one group of organisms that like it hot. Corals are most abundant in the tropics and you certainly do not find fewer corals closer to the equator. Quite the opposite, the further you get away from the heat, the worse the corals. A cooling climate is a far greater threat.


The scientific evidence about the effect of rising water temperatures on corals is very encouraging. In the GBR, growth rates of corals have been shown to be increasing over the last 100 years, at a time when water temperatures have risen. This is not surprising as the highest growth rates for corals are found in warmer waters. Further, all the species of corals we have in the GBR are also found in the islands, such as PNG, to our north where the water temperatures are considerably hotter than in the GBR. Despite the bleaching events of 1998 and 2002, most of the corals of the GBR did not bleach and of those that did, most have fully recovered.


Of course, some corals on the Queensland coast are regularly stressed from heat, viz. the remarkable corals of Moreton Bay near Brisbane which are stressed by lack of heat in winter. A couple of degrees of global warming would make them grow much better.


Even the GBR has seen massive changes in its comparatively short life. Eighteen thousand years ago, the GBR did not exist as water levels were about 100m lower than today. At that time, the Australian coast was about 100km from its present position, and the small hills upon which the reefs were to form dotted a broad and flat coastal plain that would become the GBR lagoon. When the sea level started to rise at the end of the ice age, the coast eroded at a phenomenal rate. The Aboriginal people living on these coastal plains lost land at a rate of about 50m each year as they witnessed the birth of one of the natural wonders of the world.


The reef was born in conditions that most biologists would regard as horrific for corals and far worse than what most of the present GBR would see: rising temperatures, high water turbidity due to the erosion, high nutrient concentrations due to erosion and the closer proximity of river mouths, rising CO2 concentrations, and rapidly rising sea levels (10mm per year). These are all factors presently regarded as threats to the GBR.


A few millennia later, Aboriginal people were to witness the greatest loss of coral ever seen by humans in Australia, for about 5,000 years ago, whilet civilisations were being born around the world, the sea level of eastern Australia started to fall. The coral reefs that had grown rapidly upwards to the low tide level were now exposed to the air and sun during spring tides. They died and formed the extensive dead areas called reef flat that make up a large proportion of many reefs in the GBR. It is ironic that if we see a modest sea level rise of one metre due to global warming, these dead areas of reef will explode into life, potentially doubling the coral cover. Sea level rise will be bad for Bangladesh and Venice but it will be good for the GBR.


Other threats are also overstated. Studies have shown that the quantity of sediment in rivers’ plumes that wash out into the lagoons is much less than sediment that is resuspended from the seabed every time the south-easterly trade winds blow. Pollution due to nutrients is also probably restricted to a few reefs close to a couple of river mouths as the rest of the lagoon receives relatively small nutrient loads from rivers compared to other sources, and the water is rapidly flushed to the Coral Sea.


Fishing pressure is very limited. The coast adjacent to the GBR contains about half a million people compared with 50 million for the similarly sized Caribbean reefs. Most Queenslanders never visit the reef and do not use it as a significant food source unlike most other reefs around the world. The northern 1,000 kilometres of the reef has a population that can be counted in 100’s. It has been barely touched by mankind.


With the exception of Antarctica, I challenge anyone to name an ecosystem better preserved than the GBR. The sheer lack of people pressure on this huge system, and its distance from the coast has saved the GBR from the fate that has befallen the Caribbean and other areas. It did not suffer the equivalent of land clearing for agriculture, cities, dams and roads. It does not have problems with infestations of noxious weeds and feral animals such as cats and cane toads, or the mass species extinctions of the Australian land.


Apart from a reduction in turtles and dugongs, it is doubtful that Captain Cook would notice any difference to the GBR if he sailed up this coast again. Pity we cannot say the same about the land that he visited. Whereas the coral reef that he struck near Cooktown is alive and healthy, the land around Botany Bay would be unrecognisable.


So why have we been swindled into believing this almost pristine system is just about to roll over and die when it shows so few signs of stress. There are many reasons and processes that have caused this and some of them are the same as why we should all be more than a little sceptical about the hypothesis that CO2 is causing global warming.


The first reason is that there is some very bad science around. Second, a mainly biological oriented scientific community seems to take little heed of the geological history of corals. Third, we have many organisations and scientists that rely for funding on there being a problem with the GBR.

Most grant applications on the GBR will mention at some stage that a motivation for the work is the threat to which it is exposed. I confess that I do this in all my applications - it’s the way the game works.
Why does a scientist and environmentalist such as myself worry about a little exaggeration about the reef. Surely it’s better to be safe than sorry. To a certain extent it is, however, the scientist in me worries about the credibility of science and scientists. We cannot afford to cry wolf too often or our credibility will fall to that of used car salesmen and estate agents - if it is not there already.

The environmentalist in me worries about the misdirection of scarce resources if we concentrate on “saving” a system such as the GBR. Better we concentrate on weeds and overpopulation and other genuine problems.


So I’m thinking of asking Martin Durkin to come over to Australia and do another show called The Great Great Barrier Reef Swindle. I’d have to make sure he got all his graphs right and did not talk to anybody who thought smoking didn’t cause cancer, but I reckon he could put a very compelling case that the GBR is in great shape and that there is little to fear, especially relative to other environmental issues, such as overpopulation and invasive species.

[Scott nthQld]

This is an excellent peice of information you have provided us with. I whole heartedly agree with the statements made and although I have no scientific background (other than yr 10 Biology), I found what has been said here should have been common knowledge among scientists seeing that it is their job to know the biological history of the ecosystems they might be studying.

I have read loads of your posts fishingjew, and I admire the way you hang on to something until you can find reasons to back your opinions rather than dictating how things should be.

[Adamy]

This is an excellent peice of information you have provided us with. I whole heartedly agree with the statements made and although I have no scientific background (other than yr 10 Biology), I found what has been said here should have been common knowledge among scientists seeing that it is their job to know the biological history of the ecosystems they might be studying.

I have read loads of your posts fishingjew, and I admire the way you hang on to something until you can find reasons to back your opinions rather than dictating how things should be.

Yeh Ditto to that!!!

Maybe just a request FJ?? these pieces are quite long and hard to read without adequate breaks... maybe edit them with paragraph space here and there might make them more readable!

Other than that fantastic - keep up the good work!!

Adam

[flick]

Great read fj. I was born in PNG and have had conflicting thoughts in my head as to rising sea temps effect on the GBR. I have been trying to work out how a rise could be detrimental when there are reefs thriving closer to the equator.

I would also have thought that the only true effect on the reef would see encouraged coral growth on its southern end as the water off bundy and hervey bay warmed.

I am not a scientist by any means and rely on them to try and form an informed opinion. This is the first article i've read that makes sense and would seem hard to refute.

Thanks again for the post.

Jim

[Dan5]

Good reading mate,i've been over to the Kimberly many time's and sometime's we visit a place called Montgomery reef now this area as with most of the Kimberly coast has big tidal movement up to 11mtr's around Derby.The reef's over there are exposed at low tide for anything up to 5 hr's in the baking 35deg+ sun.Now i'm sure that they have been exsposed to this for hundred's if not thousand's of year's the life ,colour and diversty on these reef's is absoultly amazing being proberbly some of the most unspoilt or untouched area's we would have in Australia.I have not witnessed any bleaching or dying on any of the reef's that i have seen over there at all,now wouldn't global warming have a similar effect on these area's as well?or is it a "east coast only"scenaro?Or maybe bacause there's not enough economic reason's for global warming scare monger's to worry about what happen's outside their own backyard's?These are just the thing's i think of when i hear all the doom and gloom story's,Australia still has pristine area's on land and sea just most people unfortunatly don't get to see them.Dan.......

[BobbyJ123]

Good read, mate.
Pay a "scientist" enough and he/she will "prove" black is white.......Check out the various "research papers" on milk, that nutritius drink we all had when young........Now, it is viewed by some, as a cancer growth food!!

[billfisher]

Dr Walter Stark pioneered the study of coral reefs and is of a similar opinion:

Are Coral Reefs Dying?

Over recent months a number of news stories and scientific studies have reported that coral reefs are in widespread global decline from human impacts and in particular from global warming. That reefs in many areas are being adversely affected by local human populations is observable. How serious this is and what portion of reefs are seriously affected is however much less clear and probably to some extent exaggerated.
Coral reefs in one form or another have been around for some 500 million years and even some present day reefs have histories going back over 50 million years. This is an incredibly long span of time. Our own evolution from ape to modern human has been a long slow process but still it has taken place in only about 5 million years. Most present day genera of corals have histories going back tens of millions of years and several first appear in the Cretaceous period around 100 million years ago. Eocene fossils of many types of fishes and other reef creatures from 50 million years ago are very similar, often even indistinguishable from, present day species.
During much of their existence reefs have flourished in a world that was more tropical than it is now. The bleaching events that are being widely touted as threatening reefs with extinction generally involve water temperatures only a degree or two above normal. It is difficult to believe that reef communities have persisted for so long within a degree or two of their extinction when in fact during much of that time the Earth was warmer than at present. So, what is going on?
Since the beginnings of recorded history predictions off imminent catastrophe have been a perennial feature of humanity. Despite a track record of near total failure such predictions never seem to lose their appeal, neither to would be prophets nor to an audience willing to believe them.
Science, despite it’s attempt at skeptical rationality, is no exception. Proclaiming serious problems results in attention, recognition and research funds. It also generates fads of interest in, and acceptance of the reality of, the claimed problems. In the 1950s and 60s the marine science community was promoting their endeavor with the promise of untold food and minerals from the sea. This promoted a lot of funding but little return. Then in the 70s and 80s environmental concerns began to be widely recognized and the failed promises of loot and plunder from the sea were quickly dropped for concerns over saving them. This too required lots of money for research but didn’t entail the inconvenient necessity of delivering anything. Success could always be claimed whenever no real problem eventuates and if it does that only indicates the necessity for more funding.
Despite the muddle of misinformation, exaggeration, promotion and herd following it is undeniable we live in a finite world and it cannot sustain growing human impacts forever. One of the biggest difficulties we face is distinguishing reality amid a confusing welter of imagination, beliefs and misinformation. Failing to do so presents us with an impossibly large range of “problems”, misdirects effort, impedes sensible use of resources, and generates increased demand elsewhere. What we don't get from one place we make up for in another.
With regard to the condition of reefs here are some facts to consider:
In the entire world, throughout history, there has only ever been one reef species that has been exterminated by humans, this was the Caribbean monk seal.
Although clearly associated with higher than normal water temperatures, coral bleaching regularly occurs at temperatures that are below what the same corals tolerate in other areas. Recent research has revealed that a number of different species of algal cell live in association with corals and these algae have differing temperature tolerance. The number and kind of algae can vary seasonally in the same coral colony and they differ in different areas. This explains how the same coral in one place can tolerate temperatures that cause bleaching in another and indicates an as yet un-assessed degree of ability to adjust to different temperatures.
Whether or not the recently observed bleaching is unprecedented is not known. Extensive surveys of central Pacific reefs in the Early 1970s found some reefs with shallow water corals mostly dead but in place. This was assumed then to be due to Crown-of-Thorns starfish infestations but it now seems more probable that a severe bleaching event may have been the cause. A study just published using isotopic analysis of age and temperatures from corals in the eastern central Pacific has found that the strongest (i.e. highest temperature) El Niño event for the past 1000 years was in the 1600s.
So too, a generally ignored effect of global warming would of necessity be a latitudinal expansion of the oceanic region available to corals.
The Great Barrier Reef of Australia with its nearly 350,000 Km² of reef and lagoon area makes up about 30% of the world’s total reef area. It is also among the most pristine of reef areas. Distance, weather and a relatively small population mean most of the GBR is rarely even visited . Of the 2900 reefs in the complex only a few dozen are regularly used for tourism and the total annual fish harvest of 17 Kg per Km² is less than 1% of what reefs elsewhere commonly sustain. The total commercial and recreational reef fish harvest for the Barrier Reef currently only comes to some 6000 metric tons annually. This is similar the what the Florida Keys produces from less than 1% of that area of reef and lagoon. It is also less than half of Australia’s own production of farmed salmon from a few bays in Tasmania. Elsewhere in the remote vastness of the Pacific and Indian Oceans there are many many reefs in healthy condition.
Even in S.E. Asia, East Africa, and the Caribbean where reefs are most heavily impacted many healthy reefs still remain and are the mainstays of a multi-billion dollar global recreational dive industry. Dive tourism has not only made healthy reefs an important economic asset but also assures that any significant deterioration will not go unnoticed.
Although the situation is never be as good as we might like it is seldom as bad as we may fear. Neither complacency nor despair is warranted but a healthy level of skepticism is, especially when mass media and “expert” opinion is involved.


Walter Starck

[Tropicaltrout]

wow what a great read thankyou both.

TT