cars killing coral reef?

[Otter]

Let me see if I remember how this Goes.

Humans blah,blah blah, and blah blah blah, blah blah. Cruise ships ba blah blah blah, blah blah. Cars blah bablah, blah blah, pollution ba blah blahbablah. United States BLAH BABLAH BABLAH.

The sky is falling!!!! the sky is falling!!!!
Give US a break.

/Moderator=OFF

Please translate...are you saying there are no environmental problems caused by humans/cars/cruise ships/US companies or citizens

OR

Are you saying you just don't give a @#$@ that there is?

/Moderator=ON

 

[archman]

Is there any concern with the earths diminishing inability to convert CO2 back to O2 due to diminishing flora?

Yes there is. If you flip the thread pages back to the earlier ones, we were discussing CO2 problems. Then we got sidetracked (my fault I think, oops!), then it came back, then we got sidetracked, which is where we are right now (sustainable resource development or something).

Atmospheric oxygen production is roughly split between land and sea. Most of the land sources stem from the Amazon forests, which are in longstanding manmade reduction. The sea sources are predominantly phytoplanktonic... we're still arguing about WHICH phytoplankton are most important. Presently the coccolithophorid camp is being assaulted by the prochlorophyte researchers... both types of plankton are relatively new to science, we used to think the DIATOMS were the cat's meow. I just reviewed this material recently to update my teaching materials, and it's still a huge mess.

SO... it's much harder to quantify phytoplankton disruptions in the food chain, therefore O2 losses here are highly theoretical. The article on coccolithophorids that originally started this post is one of many such theoretical works.

Incidentally, CO2 buildup is not primarily linked to losses in biologically produced O2. Natural ecosystems self-regulate to maintain fairly static photosynthesis/respiration ratios.

Instead, CO2 coming from natural events (volcanoes) and manmade sources (engine exhausts) are believed to be the main problem with elevated atmospheric and water concentrations.

 

[Otter]

Natural ecosystems self-regulate to maintain fairly static photosynthesis/respiration ratios.

I believe that this is true. Now in the course of self-regulating, humans may become extinct, but the EARTH will self-regulate.

 

[chrisch]

My final take-away - in a free market economy, when there's sufficient business incentive for change, mankind is able to innovate. And it is the Consumer who drives the free market.

Ahh.. I see. I feel so much better knowing that the World's rich consumers (wherever they may be) are in charge. Shame they don't care about the environment though.

Chris.

 

[Rick Murchison]

This thread has a little of everything... junk science, good science, broad-brush accusations, denial, ad-hominem attacks... your typical "environmental discussion."
Let's cut to the chase, shall we?
When humans ascended as the dominant mammal, we did so in a world vastly different from the worlds of the past. The world had already seen, without any human intervention, large swings in sea level, temperature, atmospheric concentrations of (pick your gas)... and at least two worldwide massive die-offs of ancient coral reef systems. It was very near its historical coldest, and lowest sea levels. Today it is just two or three degrees warmer than its coldest, and several degrees cooler than its warmest. Sea levels are some 300 feet above their lowest, and nearly 300 feet below their highest.
So all these massive changes can happen without our help. That's not to say that our activity can't contribute to changes - that would be the height of naivité. But to think that we alone are the cause of climatic change is the height of arrogance. It may well be that our puny contributions to world climatic shift are merely a pimple on the elephant's fanny.
So... while we should certainly look long and hard at human activity where it has detrimental effects on our environment and take action to ameliorate those effects, we'd better realize that we are small potatoes in the grand scheme of earth's climatic cycles and bend our efforts to adapting to what we cannot ultimately control.
---
To the original supposition... the best study on atmospheric carbon dioxide reveals an 18% increase in the past 46 years. On a geologic timeline that is sudden and dramatic. The curve is nearly straight-line and corresponds directly with fossil fuel consumption. And while (my opinion) there are much more pressing and immediate concerns to the ocean's health due to encroachment and nutrient dumping, I think we ought to make a real effort to cut back on our CO2 production.
Rick

 

[fgray1]

Well there is so much crap science out there. No one know what causes what. The save the earth guys point here the consumers point there. We make laws to enforce junk science and then we find out we it's a waste of time (IE recycling)
Then you wonder why people don't like the environmental groups. They try to disrupt businesses and cause problems.
Cause lost of jobs and then complain when the companies leave the US to go to friendlier counties.
Seems funny the dinosaurs became extinct and humans had nothing to do with it.
One day we to will become extinct but the earth will survive.
There are 3 kinds of humans.
The pessimist (activist crying the sky is falling)
The optimist (they think it's fine to do whatever they want and all will be fine)
Then theirs the realist ( they know were not perfect but don't try to change life styles of everyone . They do what they can to get by, day by day.) I think of it this way.
The pessimist see the hole in the doughnut.
The optimist sees the doughnut
The realist don't waste his time. He hungry and eats the dounut.
That's most of the world.
That's why I say
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.

 

[chrisch]

---
To the original supposition... the best study on atmospheric carbon dioxide reveals an 18% increase in the past 46 years. On a geologic timeline that is sudden and dramatic. The curve is nearly straight-line and corresponds directly with fossil fuel consumption. And while (my opinion) there are much more pressing and immediate concerns to the ocean's health due to encroachment and nutrient dumping, I think we ought to make a real effort to cut back on our CO2 production.
Rick

That's about as good as it gets. With you there 100%

Cars do kill coral reefs, but the way things are going there will be few fish left to populate them. That is something we can do something about and has nothing to do with climate change. Its the big trawler out there....

Chris

 

[Rick Murchison]

Cars do kill coral reefs

No, cars do not kill coral reefs. At least not yet. Cars contribute to CO2 in the atmosphere, which has increased 18% over the past 46 years. This increase is dramatic and sudden, but it isn't enough to lower the pH of the oceans to the point of doing damage to coral - yet. There are plenty of reasons to cut back on CO2 production, but an immediate threat to coral health isn't one of them. Indeed, at the current rate of coral death there won't be much coral left for low pH to kill by the time you can legitimately say "cars kill coral."
The immediate threats to coral reefs are multifaceted but include (1) silting and physical damage from storms (2) silting and physical damage from development, especially near-shore clear-cutting (3) silting and physical damage from fishing (deep trawling) (4) nutrient contamination (sewage - can you spell "cruise ship?" - industrial and agricultural runoff) (5) disease - both coral disease and diseases of other critters. The massive die-off of the spiny sea urchin in the Caribbean and the resulting upset in the reef ecosystem is a dramatic case-in-point.
So - if your goal is to "save the reef" you need to bend your efforts towards ameliorating these immediate problems. If your goal is to reduce or eliminate the rise in CO2 production then you need to hang your hat on some other reason than "cars kill coral" - 'cause that just isn't so.
Rick

 

[chrisch]

So - if your goal is to "save the reef" you need to bend your efforts towards ameliorating these immediate problems.
Rick

I have always been lead to believe silting is the #1 issue. As pointed out there are a lot of "half-truths" and snake oil science out there so I am not getting into a fight with anyone!!

Are there really any practical things we can do?

Do things like the PADI Project Aware make a difference?

There are a lot of people on Scubaboard - surely we should be able to do something better than argue amongst ourselves about whether SUVs are bad for the environment. (Err yup).

Chris

 

[Otter]

...snip... They try to disrupt businesses and cause problems.
Cause lost of jobs and then complain when the companies leave the US to go to friendlier counties.

While I don't agree with many of the tactics that they use, I do think there is a proper time to disrupt business and cause problems. In our capitalist society, not perfect but IMHO the best system we have, businesses and people make decisions on their own best self-interest. So if pumping DDT into the ocean is cheapest, companies do it. It its cheaper to make single hull tankers, they do it. The leaders of these companies are not personally affected by these poor long-term decisions, but benefit greatly by them in the short-term.

As for going to 'friendlier' countries, what you are really saying is that they are going to countries that are cheaper -- in terms of labor, safety requirements, environmental impact. Again, short-sighted leaders make decisions based upon their best interests -- re-election, kickbacks, etc. Unfortunately, their decisions affect all of us -- think deforestation, ocean polution, air polution. I don't want some short-sighted politician in a 3rd world country deciding my fate.

Seems funny the dinosaurs became extinct and humans had nothing to do with it.
One day we to will become extinct but the earth will survive.

I agree. As a realist, I have no fear that on a geologic time scale that the Earth will survive (unless we REALLY SCREW up and render the planet lifeless -- my view is that will only happen through some atomic mess). My concern is not to save the Earth, I just want to delay as much as possible the inevitable.

There are 3 kinds of humans.
The pessimist (activist crying the sky is falling)
The optimist (they think it's fine to do whatever they want and all will be fine)
Then theirs the realist ( they know were not perfect but don't try to change life styles of everyone . They do what they can to get by, day by day.) I think of it this way.
The pessimist see the hole in the doughnut.
The optimist sees the doughnut
The realist don't waste his time. He hungry and eats the dounut.
That's most of the world.
That's why I say
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.

In the context of trying to delay the inevitable, a modification to your analogy come to mind.

The optimist sees the doughnut as a convenient food source.

The pessimist sees the hole in the doughnut thinking how much better it would be to have the doughnut hole as well.

The realist sees the doughnut as a poor source of nutrition -- high in fat -- and that if he establishes a pattern of repeated doughnut consumption, he will like suffer a heart attack and cut many years of of his life.

People in 'friendlier countries' (read: poor, 3rd world countries) have no choice -- they are hungry and gladly would eat as many doughnuts as they can. Long term to them is next week.

People in more developed nations generally don't have the same immediate needs, but if the US is any indication many continue to make short-term decisions (its easy, taste good, cheap) at eat those doughnuts. The majority of those that do establish a patten of doughnut consumption develop major medical problems and often die early. The rest of us are impacted in terms of higher insurance rates, medical costs and taxes.

If polution only affected the decision maker, I would let Darwin take over. Unfortunately, it doesn't.