Dying Oceans

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

I should hope so ... until there's money to be made, nothing catches on ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)
 
Forests are not a cash crop.

Really? So you don't buy toilet paper?

---------- Post added November 15th, 2013 at 12:44 PM ----------

We do not own the planet,

Thanks to my opposable thumbs and ability to think up clever gadgets to kill things...I think I do own it!

---------- Post added November 15th, 2013 at 01:15 PM ----------

Let's not forget that what we really need to do to save the environment is reduce our use of aluminum because of the huge amount of energy required at the smelter to power the electrodes. There's a reason every aluminum smelter is near a coal fired power plant.

Oh, wait Scuba Tanks are made from aluminum!:rofl3: (So are the engine blocks in high efficiency little cars.) OK. No problem. We'll use steel tanks. Ooops, the galvanizing uses zinc. Producing zinc leaves piles of cadmium as a byproduct. Cadmium....bad. Ohhh nooo.

Oh, so I guess you can't use electric cars with big batteries either. Ever been in a battery factory? It'll kill you.

So, I guess we'll all just have to have jobs that don't really produce products. Oh, OK, so now we will freeze to death or starve. Can't even have an axe to chop wood for the winter since someone would have had to forge the axe head somewhere. Maybe we can all be teachers....Oops, no... cuz producing paper is bad, computers are full of toxic resins and heavy metals. (Ever been in a circuit board crystal plant?)

OK, Let's make a deal. You starve and freeze yourself to death and I'll use the scuba gear you don't need anymore.:gas:

---------- Post added November 15th, 2013 at 01:23 PM ----------

You didn't happen to use a diesel powered, aluminum hulled boat to get to the last dive site did you?:wink: And I'm sure you used a leather, foot powered compressor to fill your pig's bladder air tank.
 
Last edited:
I read this yesterday and was deeply saddened as well. What are we leaving for future generations?

A world that is on its last legs?

Very sad reading, but thanks for bringing it to a wider audience...

:(
 
A world that is on its last legs?

Very sad reading, but thanks for bringing it to a wider audience...

:(
At this rate honestly sweet nothing. keep doing as industry is doing right now we will have more anoxic zones than we know what to do with. nirate is the biggest offender in short term time scales but Phospate build ups in geological records have been shown to cause massive amounts of anoxic zone builds ups. The temperature build up that is going to happen over the next 100 years could amount to a 7.5 degree( if we get our **** together we could keep the temp increase to as little a 4) c temperature increase in the northern hemisphere. For those that think temperature is not a major issue look up desertification and thermogeddon. But Max above is a prime example of what most people think in this world sadly and the ones who run the show in the world are a blind, deft, and dumb as he is. Sure I want to go diving in a ocean which had nothing living it cause we fished the ocean out of fish or destroyed their ecosystems and it will take millions of years to diversify. But no this has never happened... looks at Permian mass extinction...no it hasn't happened....
 
I don't really understand how scientists can claim to know how much the temperature will rise (or fall) in the next 100 or 200 years. We can't accurately predict weather even months ahead. This year was supposed to be a very active hurricane year in the Atlantic and Caribbean. We had….4?

I do agree that we need to control emissions and other garbage disposal. But I think we're shooting in the dark as far was what the uncontrolled outcome will be.
Well…..I guess we have a 50% chance of getting the prediction right.
 
I don't really understand how scientists can claim to know how much the temperature will rise (or fall) in the next 100 or 200 years. We can't accurately predict weather even months ahead. This year was supposed to be a very active hurricane year in the Atlantic and Caribbean. We had….4?

I do agree that we need to control emissions and other garbage disposal. But I think we're shooting in the dark as far was what the uncontrolled outcome will be.
Well…..I guess we have a 50% chance of getting the prediction right.

I have to agree. It's popular opinion now.

When a politician is spearheading a scientific movement I have to wonder.

In the 80's wasn't the fear of global cooling more prevalent? I suppose it's been changed to "climate change" but when you keep changing your mind about it, it doesn't make the theory seem refined.

The thing about the modeling they've done with CO2 is that it relies almost entirely upon a causal link, and neglects the more likely outcome that it's a common response situation. Those correlations look great until the day they cease to exist. There's millions of those relationships to try and predict off of, and few that are worth a damn.

I think we can all agree that reducing energy usage is good, and working to create less pollution can be a common goal. However, it seems there's quite a hullabaloo about something we know nothing about. The phrase, "Well what if we're right" is an emotion generating phrase on par with "life-support equipment."
 
I don't really understand how scientists can claim to know how much the temperature will rise (or fall) in the next 100 or 200 years. We can't accurately predict weather even months ahead. This year was supposed to be a very active hurricane year in the Atlantic and Caribbean. We had….4?

I do agree that we need to control emissions and other garbage disposal. But I think we're shooting in the dark as far was what the uncontrolled outcome will be.
Well…..I guess we have a 50% chance of getting the prediction right.

Weather and climate are not the same thing ... one is short-term and local, the other is long-term and global. Predicting weather is based on observances of what we see happening today, and making a projection based on assumptions of how the dynamic variables that affect weather are likely to interact. Predicting climate change is more about looking at trends, and projecting those trends into the future ... and once again based on assumptions of how variable conditions are likely to interact.

Nobody has a crystal ball ... but conceptually it isn't all that much different than how we, as divers, determine what's "acceptable risk" of getting DCS. In our case, we hedge our bets by adding layers of conservatism to our theoretical models ... and we still occasionally get it wrong and end up with what we call an "undeserved hit". I suspect that's pretty much what these climate predictions are attempting to do as well, but in the case of climate, an "undeserved hit" has the potential for wiping out our species ... and taking a lot of other species along for the ride ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)
 
The *disease* is uncontrolled population growth.

There is certainly much truth to this as pointed out much earlier by Malthus, Paul Ehrlich and others.

However there is an additional factor that should be weighed in addition... the impact of lifestyle choices on the environment. A large human population might do reasonably well as vegetarians since eating lower on the food chain can sustain far more than being at the top. I don't advocate vegetarianism myself, although I think there are good ecological arguments for it.

As the population continues to grow AND as more cultures buy in to the high resource utilization of the developed countries, the impact on the environment is magnified far more than just by population growth alone. We need to limit population AND find less impacting technologies to live more within our ecological means.
 
A large human population might do reasonably well as vegetarians since eating lower on the food chain can sustain far more than being at the top. I don't advocate vegetarianism myself, although I think there are good ecological arguments for it.

... I'll become a vegetarian when bacon becomes a vegetable ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)
 
Just fly Coast to Coast. Vast areas of emptiness. Worlds population growth is slowing and is projected to level off mid century.
The sky isn't falling yet. We are making progress on energy which is the underlying problem.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/perdix-ai/

Back
Top Bottom