Great Barrier Reef suffers most widespread bleaching on record
Scientists documented the "most spatially extensive" bleaching since records began almost 40 years ago, driven by sweltering ocean temperatures in 2024 that triggered "unprecedented levels of heat stress".
The Australian Institute of Marine Science surveyed the health of 124 coral reefs between August 2024 and May 2025.
Northern and southern branches of the sprawling reef had seen the "largest annual decline in coral cover" ever recorded, the government agency found.
Reefs had been battered by tropical cyclones and infestations of crown-of-thorns starfish that feast on coral.
But the "number one cause is climate change," said the institute's research lead Mike Emslie.
"There is no doubt about that," he told AFP.
Often dubbed the world's largest living structure, the Great Barrier Reef is a 2,300 kilometre (1,400-mile) expanse of tropical corals that houses a stunning array of biodiversity.
But repeated bleaching events have threatened to rob the tourist drawcard of its wonder, turning banks of once-vibrant coral a sickly white.
Unusually warm tropical waters triggered widespread coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef in 2024 and in the first few months of 2025 -- the sixth such event in the past nine years.
"The (Great Barrier Reef) experienced unprecedented levels of heat stress, which caused the most spatially extensive and severe bleaching recorded to date," the report found.
Over the past two years a mass global bleaching event has drained the life from more than 80 percent of the world's coral reefs.
Bleaching occurs when water temperatures rise forcing coral to expel the colourful microscopic algae, known as zooxanthellae, embedded in their tissues.
If high temperatures persist, the coral can eventually turn white and die.
Emslie said past coral growth would help cushion the record losses and that the Great Barrier Reef was still an "amazing place".
- 'Worth fighting for' -
"It is still worth fighting for. We can't throw our arms up and give up," he said.
The report found a rapidly growing type of coral -- known as acropora -- had suffered the most.
This coral is quick to grow, but is also one of the first to bleach.
The report found that any recovery of the reef could take years and was dependent on future coral reproduction and minimal environmental disturbance.
Richard Leck from the World Wildlife Fund compared the fluctuating health of the Great Barrier Reef to a "rollercoaster".
"That is a sign of an ecosystem under incredible stress and what reef scientists are hugely concerned about is when the reef does not keep bouncing back the way it has," he told AFP.
Leck said some coral reefs around the world were already beyond recovery, warning the Great Barrier Reef could suffer the same fate without ambitious and rapid climate action.
The average sea surface temperature around Australia was the "highest on record" in 2024, according to Australian National University.
Australia is currently developing its next round of emissions reduction targets, a key obligation under the landmark Paris climate agreement.
The mining superpower remains one of the world's biggest coal exporters and continues to heavily subsidise its fossil fuel sectors.
lec/sft/mtp
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
As Earth Warms, California Fire Season Is Starting Earlier, Study Finds
California's main wildfire season is starting earlier in the year, and human-caused climate change is a major reason, new research finds. The onset of summertime fire activity in large parts of the state has crept into spring by up to two months since the early 1990s, according to a study published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances. The change has been especially pronounced in the Cascade Range in Northern California, the coastal mountains of Central California and coastal Southern California from Monterey to San Diego. Officials and disaster managers in the state now often speak of fire as a year-round hazard, instead of a seasonal threat. The study rules out two factors that might theoretically be behind the shift: buildups of vegetation and changes in the number of fires ignited, either accidentally or on purpose, by humans. The more important drivers, the researchers found, are the effects of greenhouse warming, including earlier and faster snowmelt and a warmer atmosphere that pulls more moisture out of soil and vegetation. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Bloomberg
2 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Chris Wright Touts Energy Department Report's Misleading Climate Claims
While promoting his agency's recently released climate report, US Energy Secretary Chris Wright has said that climate change is not making extreme weather more intense and more common. That's counter to authoritative climate science research. His statements come amid a push by the Trump administration to eliminate climate programs and scientist positions and to reduce access to past US-produced scientific reports, while issuing new material that goes against mainstream findings.
Washington Post
4 hours ago
- Washington Post
A study predicted huge climate damages. But it had a fatal flaw: Uzbekistan.
A year ago, a paper published in the journal Nature made a sweeping claim: The world economy was already on track to lose 19 percent of global gross domestic product by 2050, compared with what it would have been without climate change. By 2100, under a high emissions scenario, it predicted that global GDP would be roughly 62 percent lower than without climate change. Those numbers were a whopping three times higher than previous estimates — sparking concern that climate change would hinder the global economy much more than expected. The paper made waves across social media; according to one analysis by the U.K.-based outlet CarbonBrief, it was the second-most cited paper in the media in 2024. The paper's analysis and dataset, meanwhile, have been used for financial planning by the U.S. government, World Bank and other institutions. There was just one problem, according to a new analysis: The paper's findings were flawed. A new commentary published Wednesday in Nature found that the massive damages predicted by the paper were predicated on data errors stemming from one country — Uzbekistan. With Uzbekistan removed from the dataset, the predictions dropped substantially — from 62 percent GDP loss in 2100 to 23 percent and from 19 percent by 2050 to 6 percent, said Solomon Hsiang, director of the global policy laboratory at Stanford University and one of the authors of the new commentary. 'Everybody who works with data has some responsibility to look at the data and make sure it's fit for purpose,' Hsiang said. The authors of the original paper, however, argue that their analysis still holds. Karl Ziemelis, chief applied and physical sciences editor at Nature, wrote in an email that the journal was reviewing the study, and 'appropriate editorial action would be taken once the matter was resolved.' 'Science has worked, and always will work, through a process of constant interrogation and review, whether that be during the course of research, in peer review or in post publication assessment,' Ziemelis added. Hsiang and his co-authors, graduate students Tom Bearpark and Dylan Hogan, , discovered the error by removing one country at a time from the dataset. Every other country they removed only slightly changed the GDP predictions. But when Uzbekistan was taken out, the results changed dramatically. They then looked closer at the Uzbekistan data. The paper's dataset showed the country's GDP plummeting dramatically in the year 2000, losing almost 90 percent. Then in 2010, it showed the GDP climbing in some regions by over 90 percent. Other years also showed wild oscillations. According to the World Bank, the country's growth over the past 40 years has actually been quite modest — ranging from a 0.2 percent loss to a 7.7 percent growth. Those swings were so dramatic in the initial paper's data that they dominated the underlying model, which connected temperature and precipitation changes with economic growth. That resulted in a model that showed GDP would take sharp hits from climate change. Hsiang found the results surprising. 'When you have a lot of data points, the idea that a small country could be so influential is not intuitive,' Hsiang said. That's why, he said, it's essential to rigorously test the results and the data. The authors of the original paper, scientists at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, have a different take. The error in the Uzbekistan data, they said, was due to problems with how the original data was processed. In an additional analysis, they corrected the Uzbekistan data, and also changed how their model controlled for underlying economic trends. 'We find actually that by doing that, our estimates in general get more robust,' said Maximilian Kotz, a postdoctoral researcher at the Potsdam Institute. Using this altered method, they found results that agreed closely with their original findings. Instead of 19 percent damages by 2050, for example, the new analysis shows 17 percent. 'We are grateful, and I think it's a good part of the scientific process that they've pointed out these issues,' said Leonie Wenz, professor of environmental economics at the Technical University of Berlin and another author of the initial study. 'But importantly, the main conclusions of the paper hold, and there are only slight changes to the estimates.' That change, however, required modifying the methodology of the paper, and critics are still skeptical. 'Science doesn't work by changing the setup of an experiment to get the answer you want,' Hsiang said. 'This approach is antithetical to the scientific method.' Concerns about the large magnitude of the GDP changes were already clear in the peer review process. In a peer review document, posted publicly by Nature, one anonymous reviewer wrote, 'I find all of this well explained and fairly convincing, yet, purely subjectively, I have a hard time in believing the results, which seem unintuitively large given damages aren't perfectly persistent.' After some back-and-forth with the authors, the reviewer later approved of the paper going to publication. Hsiang says the study is an important example of how science corrects itself, and that 'The fact that there's one car accident due to driver error doesn't mean that we think cars are fundamentally dysfunctional.' 'If people are at all skeptical about how science functions — the answer is well, our team discovered this issue, and we believe transparency is super important,' he said. 'That's the ethos of science.'
