Coral bleaching leaves Lord Howe reef ‘on knife-edge’

ABC News, 24th March 2010

Parts of the world’s most southerly coral reef are under threat after it suffered its largest-recorded bleaching event.

Lord Howe Island is well known for its pristine environment and natural beauty.

The island’s isolation has allowed it to develop unique and endemic marine life and the waters contain an unusual mix of tropical, sub-tropical and temperate corals.

But since January the waters around Lord Howe have experienced unusually warmer temperatures. The average rose by two degrees Celsius and the corals are showing the first signs of extensive bleaching. (Read More)

Severe Tropical Cyclone Ului approaches the Queensland coastline

WEATHER Bureau forecasters predict Cyclone Ului will turn south today, tracking parallel with the Queensland coast.

But the US Joint Typhoon Warning Centre has the cyclone easing and veering towards the coast in an area between Fraser Island and Airlie Beach on Friday.

Ului was situated south of the Solomon Islands yesterday, 1400km northeast of Mackay and moving west-southwest at 7km/h. That is about half its speed of the previous day. (Read More)

Update:  Ului has veered around and is now bearing down on Townsville.  Let’s hope it runs out of puff …

Coal versus coral: Greed versus ethics?

Mining billionaire Clive Palmer has just been awarded the deal of the century.  Under an arrangement financed by China (from where he borrowed the money), Clive Palmer will export $69 billion worth of thermal coal from new coal mines in central Queensland.  This deal, which still requires government approval, pits coal against coral.

The irony is that Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, just off the coast from where this coal will be dug, is one of the many casualties of the emissions.  The Great Barrier Reef provides $6.5 billion to our economy each year, which are benefits that are ongoing and which will never run out as long as we protect the Reef.  It is also central to our pride as the nation, and is perhaps our most precious environmental icon.

In raw economic terms, the benefits from a $69 billion coal deal are only equivalent to 10 years of the $ benefits from a thriving tourist industry on the Great Barrier Reef.

So what will PM Kevin Rudd and our government do?  On one hand, they face harassment from opposition that can’t even count (e.g. opp. finance spokesman, Barnaby Joyce) and which fails to take the advice of its best scientists on anthropogenic climate change seriously (e.g. senior Nick Minchin).  On the other hand, after playing such a prominent role in pushing for emission cuts at the climate treaty negotiations, it would seem that the Rudd government has no other choice but to knock this is a deal on the head.   After all, anything else would be inconsistent with its position on taking climate change seriously.

Clive Palmer (who seems to be a man with more than enough money) has been pushing the jobs barrow, which is one way to sell this to the Australian public. But what about the damage caused by this coal to this in Australia’s future?  It is not a trivial amount.

Australia currently exports 30% of the coal used worldwide, and expects countries overseas to deal with the resulting dangerous emissions (i.e. it is not even counted in our carbon footprint). The latter represents a huge copout given that there are no known solutions to dealing with these emissions.  Even technologies such as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) have yet to be demonstrated on a broad scale and are only expected to significantly impact emissions 20 or so years into the future.   And that is will be too late.

Sounds like passing the buck to me.  I believe that we should hold our government accountable and prevent this coal deal from going forward.  This would be a logical and ethical thing to do under any other circumstance.  Just imagine if we had developed a wonderful new chemical technology that would earn Australia lots of money but which had huge environmental impacts and devastating societal consequences.  Would it be ethical to export this technology and hope that our customers would invent something to deal with the impacts?

Climate Shifts Round-up for 2009

As 2010 begins, we figured it was an apt time to do a round-up of 2009 here it at Climate Shifts. It has been an exciting year – we enlisted several new bloggers, created 327 posts and greatly expanded our readership. With thirteen scientists and experts in the field of coral reefs and climate change writing commentaries, the blog is expanding to a considerable expertise.

Since we moved to more reliable servers (carbon-netural green hosting!) at the end of September we’ve had 10,539 unique visitors with over 35,572 page views (excluding bots). We’ve had people from 152 countries/territories from from 2,628 cities reading our posts:

In other news, the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland officially commenced on January 1st 2010 under the guidance of Ove, and John is heading down under to Brisbane with his family for a sabbatical at UQ. Onwards to 2010! We are planning some changes for next year and would really appreciate hearing from you what type of content you want us to provide.

See below for a few stats from our plugins (again since September) – seems that the notorious Andrew Bolt post drew a few deniers out of the woodwork with 2578 views and 48 comments.

most rated posts

  1. COP15: Cold and grey but buzzing with excitement and hope. 472 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5472 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5472 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5472 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5472 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5 (5.00 out of 5)
  2. “Macro-algal dominated coral reefs: shake that ASS” 4 votes, average: 5.00 out of 54 votes, average: 5.00 out of 54 votes, average: 5.00 out of 54 votes, average: 5.00 out of 54 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5 (5.00 out of 5)
  3. More climate delusionism and questionable science 3 votes, average: 5.00 out of 53 votes, average: 5.00 out of 53 votes, average: 5.00 out of 53 votes, average: 5.00 out of 53 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5 (5.00 out of 5)
  4. Humpty dumpty and the ghosts 3 votes, average: 5.00 out of 53 votes, average: 5.00 out of 53 votes, average: 5.00 out of 53 votes, average: 5.00 out of 53 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5 (5.00 out of 5)
  5. Testing the ‘macroalgal dominated coral reefs’ paradigm 2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 52 votes, average: 5.00 out of 52 votes, average: 5.00 out of 52 votes, average: 5.00 out of 52 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5 (5.00 out of 5)
  6. Local stressors act to reduce the resilience of corals to bleaching events 2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 52 votes, average: 5.00 out of 52 votes, average: 5.00 out of 52 votes, average: 5.00 out of 52 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5 (5.00 out of 5)
  7. Maldives President Calls Underwater Meeting 2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 52 votes, average: 5.00 out of 52 votes, average: 5.00 out of 52 votes, average: 5.00 out of 52 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5 (5.00 out of 5)
  8. Hot Pink Beasties of the Deep 2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 52 votes, average: 5.00 out of 52 votes, average: 5.00 out of 52 votes, average: 5.00 out of 52 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5 (5.00 out of 5)
  9. Preservation of coral reefs: why isn’t the majority heard? 2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 52 votes, average: 5.00 out of 52 votes, average: 5.00 out of 52 votes, average: 5.00 out of 52 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5 (5.00 out of 5)
  10. Corals likely to starve in a high CO2 world 2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 52 votes, average: 5.00 out of 52 votes, average: 5.00 out of 52 votes, average: 5.00 out of 52 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5(5.00 out of 5)

most viewed posts

  1. Happy Birthday to… Andrew Bolt! – 2,578 views
  2. “Macro-algal dominated coral reefs: shake that ASS” – 1,593 views
  3. The never-ending jellyfish joyride – 1,511 views
  4. “Great Barrier Reef could adapt to climate change, scientists say” – Facts, fallacies and fanciful thinking. – 1,126 views
  5. Why the existence of ‘heat tolerant’ corals does not mean that coral reefs will be able to resist climate change. – 1,096 views
  6. PLoS One: an open access venue for coral reef science – 955 views
  7. ExxonMobil still funding climate change sceptics – 893 views
  8. The coral reef crisis: The critical importance of <350 ppm CO2 – 843 views
  9. Catch of the day: invasive lionfish – 814 views
  10. Doom and Boom on a Resilient Reef: Climate Change, Algal Overgrowth and Coral Recovery – 784 views

There is so much great science being done in the oceans, on coral reefs and on climate change and so many important policy debates, it can be overwhelming trying to keep up and cover it all.  Luckily there are a number of awesome online resources, at least regarding climate change.  Below is a list of our favorites, in no particular order:

  • RealClimate: An amazing resource from real climate scientists.  The comments can be very educational too.
  • Skeptical Science: The webs best debunker of denier myths.
  • All the Peter Sinclair videos (which can be seen here and on YouTube)
  • ClimateProgress (a very thorough coverage of climate change policy and science, even though Joe verges on hysteria at times)
  • Malaria, Bedbugs, Sea Lice and Sunsets:  Always interesting and informative commentary from a boots on the ground coral reef conservation scientist.
  • Deltoid: Tim Lambert tells it how it is
  • David Horton: David blogs about the environment and social justice here and on the Huff Post here
  • Monbiot.com: A collection of George Monbiot’s provocative essays

Australian emissions proposal divides Copenhagen


Australia has led the charge on proposed land-use rule changes to the new global climate deal. The changes would open the door to the bonanza of green carbon that could be stored away in the world’s rural lands. UN figures show Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions have risen by 82 per cent since 1990, largely as a result of bushfires and drought. An Australian climate change negotiator has reportedly said the country could cut its emissions by 25 per cent by 2020 if it could count land use changes.

But the move is deeply dividing the Copenhagen conference, as Australia – and other big players – have been accused of trying to pull off an accounting rort. Australian Greens Senator Christine Milne, who is in Copenhagen, says the proposal is dishonest. (Read More)

“You need to reduce your emissions from fossil fuels and you need to sequester carbon in the landscape and protect your forests as carbon stores, but that isn’t happening,” she said.

“What we are seeing is dishonest systems so that we’re going to end up with something that doesn’t actually save the climate.”

Scientists call for urgent ‘global cooling’ to save coral reefs

Screen shot 2009-11-09 at 10.14.28 AM

UQ News, 8th November 2009

Australian marine scientists have issued an urgent call for massive and rapid worldwide cuts in carbon emissions, deep enough to prevent atmospheric CO2 levels rising to 450 parts per million (ppm).

In the lead up to United Nations Copenhagen Climate Change Conference Professors Charlie Veron (former Chief Scientist, Australian Institute of Marine Science) and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies and The University of Queensland, have urged the world’s leaders to adopt a maximum global emission target of 325 parts per million (ppm).

This will be essential, they say, to save coral reefs worldwide from a catastrophic decline which threatens the livelihoods of an estimated 500 million people globally.

This is substantially lower than today’s atmospheric levels of 387 ppm, and far below the 450ppm limit envisaged by most governments attending Copenhagen as necessary to restrain global warming to a 2 degree rise, on average.

“This may take a long time. However, climate change is an intergenerational issue which will require intergenerational thinking,” Professor Hoegh-Guldberg said.

“If CO2 levels are allowed to continue to approach 450 ppm (due by 2030–2040 at the current rates at which emissions are climbing), reefs will be in rapid and terminal decline world-wide from mass coral bleaching, ocean acidification, and other environmental impacts associated with climate change,” Professor Charlie Veron, Professor Hoegh-Guldberg, Dr Janice Lough of COECRS and the Australian Institute of Marine Science and colleagues warn in a new scientific paper published in the Marine Pollution Bulletin.

“Damage to shallow reef communities will become extensive with consequent reduction of biodiversity followed by extinctions,” they said.

“Reefs will cease to be large-scale nursery grounds for fish and will cease to have most of their current value to humanity. There will be knock-on effects to ecosystems associated with reefs, and to other (marine) ecosystems.”

The researchers say that coral deaths due to bleaching were first observed when global atmospheric CO2 levels passed 320ppm in the 1970s. By the mid-1980s, at 340 ppm, sporadic, highly-destructive events were being recorded.

In the paper they argue for a long-term limit “below 350ppm” to be set.

Prof Veron told the British Royal Society recently that Australia’s Great Barrier Reef would be on ‘death row’ unless urgent action was taken to stem global carbon emissions.

“We are tracking the IPCC’s worst case scenario. The global CO2 situation, tracked by temperature and sea level rise, is now following the worst case scenario,” he says. “The people meeting at Copenhagen need to hear this message.”

At the same time CO2 emissions are turning the oceans more acidic, causing damage to corals and all life with a carbonate skeletons or shells and, if unchecked, potentially leading to mass extinctions of ocean life like those of the geological past.

“We are already well above the safe levels for the world’s coral reefs. The proposed 450ppm/2 degree target is dangerous for the world’s corals and for the 500 million people who depend on them,” Professor Hoegh-Guldberg said.

“We should not go there, not only for reasons of coral reefs, but for the many other impacts that are extremely likely.

“We deduce, from the history of coral bleaching, that the safe level for coral reefs is probably about 320 or 325ppm.

“From fossil air taken from ice cores we know the world has not exceeded 300ppm for at least the last 760,000 years, so we are already in dangerous territory.

“We are already way outside the limits that mother earth has been operating within for millions of years.”

“Then there is sea level rise. The latest scientific consensus that the minimum sea level rise we can expect globally is 1 m. The IPCC’s earlier estimates on this are now seen as far too conservative. A metre of rise will displace at least 30 million people and contaminate the underground water supplies of many coastal cities with salt.

“Tens of millions of people are going to be displaced. This is not just about corals. Big issues of food security and regional security are also at stake, and we all need to wake up to the fact that climate change is not simply about warm days.”

“It will cost less than 1 per cent of GDP growth (over the next 50 years) to sort this problem out. In times of war individual countries have devoted anything from 40 to 70 per cent of their GDP to the war effort, so the effort required to cease emitting carbon is far, far smaller.

“It is completely affordable, completely achievable.

“The consequences of not cutting carbon emissions sharply are extremely serious for humanity. It is time all people understood this.”