I dived deeper—

“ Post-Ice Age (~6,000–8,000 years ago)
• As the last glacial period ended, glaciers melted and sea levels rose.
• Around 8,000 years ago, sea levels stabilized enough for coral polyps to begin colonizing the submerged shelf again.
• This is when the modern Great Barrier Reef began forming on top of the older reef structures.”

This means things change and life goes on, including on the moveable Reef!
Critics back to Geology 1, please.

Indyvidual,

I’ll save you the time… http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal
___

Lytton,

Yes, the Reef has existed in various forms for thousands of years, and corals have recolonised areas after natural changes in sea level and temperature. None of that makes today’s rapid, human-driven warming harmless or “business as usual.”

By that logic, because forests have regrown after ice ages and volcanic eruptions, we shouldn’t worry about clear-felling or deforestation today.

The issue isn’t whether the Reef can recover over geological timescales, it’s whether it can survive and thrive on human timescales, supporting the biodiversity, tourism, and fishing industries that rely on it now.

Speed matters.

If warming, bleaching, and acidification outpace the Reef’s ability to adapt or regrow, we end up with a degraded ecosystem for centuries. That’s not “critics needing Geology 1,” that’s recognising the difference between slow natural shifts and unprecedented disruption in a human lifetime.

Deniers back to Geology 1, Marine Biology 1, Oceanography 1, Ecology 1, Environmental Chemistry 1, Geomorphology 1, Microbiology 1, and Fisheries Science 1.

Please.

John Daysh,
I suppose you had to use Grammarly to post that link seeing that you rely on others to do the thinking for you !
Don't you have any experiences you can draw on to provide factual rather than hypothetical statements copied from others ?
FYI, I dive quite a lot on the Ribbon Reefs & let me tell you, there's more life to be found in the gutters in Cairns than out there ! Recreational fishing is doing the most harm to the ecology but nobody including you wants to admit it.

John Daysh
Too much subjectivity there to be convincing. Who measures what speed? What degrees of interdependence? New theories of relativity, I guess,
Anyway, return to my first post. We don’t have a silo or atmospheric tent over the Reef.
Off you go to China, India, et al and sell them your belief of reducing global emissions to ‘save’ the Reef.
Don’t think you will get far. But please face up to the challenge.

Indyvidual,

Insults and “you must dive it yourself” are still just appeals to personal experience, they don’t replace data.

The condition of the GBR isn’t determined by how it looks to one diver in one spot, it’s measured by systematic surveys covering hundreds of sites, multiple depths, and many coral species.

If your own dives show “more life in Cairns gutters,” that’s anecdotal, and the fact that it feels to you like it differs from AIMS findings doesn’t mean their data is wrong. It means your observations are one tiny, non-representative sample of a 2,300km reef system.

Yes, recreational fishing can have localised ecological impacts, but large-scale coral bleaching is driven by heat stress from marine heatwaves. It’s not hypothetical, it’s documented in AIMS’ long-term monitoring and in peer-reviewed studies.

If you have data from credible sources to contradict those findings, present it. Otherwise, all we have here is your experience versus decades of systematic science.
___

Lytton,

It’s measured directly by tracking bleaching frequency, marine heatwave intensity, and recovery intervals in AIMS long-term datasets.

//Too much subjectivity there to be convincing.//

Time and growth rates aren't subjective.

//Who measures what speed?//

AIMS and other scientific bodies measure it. Again, the data show mass bleaching events now occur every 4-6 years instead of once or twice a generation.

//What degrees of interdependence?//

Coral species vary in recovery rates and vulnerability, but the ecosystem relies on a diversity of species. Fast-growing acropora can rebound quickly, but it’s fragile and gets hit hardest in the next stress event.

//New theories of relativity, I guess,//

http://ibb.co/0p0WD1nB

//We don’t have a silo or atmospheric tent over the Reef.//

Local action doesn’t “seal” the Reef, but it reduces our contribution to the problem and boosts credibility when pressing larger emitters.

//Off you go to China, India, et al and sell them your belief...//

It’s not “belief,” it’s data. And I don’t need to because they're adopting renewables faster than the rest of the world combined.

Thanks to John D for a good morning laugh before breakfast with his:
"Local action doesn’t “seal” the Reef, but it reduces our contribution to the problem and boosts credibility when pressing larger emitters.

//Off you go to China, India, et al and sell them your belief...//

It’s not “belief,” it’s data. And I don’t need to because they're adopting renewables faster than the rest of the world combined."

The reality:
AI Overview
China is currently permitting new coal-fired power plants at a rate of approximately two per week, according to reports from the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air. This rate is based on the large number of new coal power approvals in 2022, which were equivalent to two new plants per week, according to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. While China has pledged to peak emissions by 2030, the continued development of coal power plants raises concerns about achieving this goal.

And: A “resurgence” in construction of new coal-fired power plants in China is “undermining the country’s clean-energy progress”, says a new joint report by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) and Global Energy Monitor (GEM).

The country began building 94.5 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-power capacity and resumed 3.3GW of suspended projects in 2024, the highest level of construction in the past 10 years, according to the two thinktanks.

The accelerated buildout, fuelled by investment from the coal-mining sector, “raises critical concerns” about China’s ability to transition away from the fossil fuel, the report warns
(It currently has 1,195 operational coal plants. Australia has just 18 according to Statista)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/859266/number-of-coal-power-plants-by-country/