• Ms. ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    8 months ago

    Is this considered a good thing? Like obviously the reason they’re moving is bad but the fact they are means at least some species are adjusting and maybe we can have a little biodiversity as a treat yeah?

    • TSG_Asmodeus (he, him)@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      Kind of a mixed bag. They shouldn’t be able to survive here because it should be too cold. But more coral reefs are better.

      So,

      Good: More reefs

      Bad: Our water shouldn’t be warm enough for them.

      • gony
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        So I think there is a bit of unfortunate wording and lack of context in this article.

        the “Shouldn’t exist” quote doesn’t seem to be attributed to any scientist or fisherman, and I suspect is an editorial comment from someone who associates coral with the tropics.

        Have a look at species like Paragorgia arborea or the Primnoisis corals, which are both common in BC waters, and even in Alaska. Much further north.

        Even in the article they indicate that the threats to these species in our waters are increasing temperatures and interactions with fishing gear, because they are cold-water, low-light corals.

        Lessons of the day:

        Cold-water, deep sea corals exist.

        They aren’t here because of global warming, but they could be threatened by it.

        Because of where they are, they are poorly understood and reefs of them are still being discovered.