Our sunscreen into Our reefs

[Michael_84]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15561195#post15561195 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Rossini
idiot :bum:

It was a Joke...

I don't know what it's like in the UK but "Global Warming" is all we hear about in the U.S.

 

[Rossini]

Good, I'm glad it's all you hear about. After years and years of denial to protect certain interests and industrys you have a president who wants to work to tackle this huge problem.

As the worlds second largest emmiter of greenhouse gases and the worlds biggest consumer, the world needs you guys on board. Without you onboard. China,India,Brazil,Australia wont work to cut emmisions. At the moment we are screwing everything up for our kids.

 

[ackee]

I think it's important to remember that it was the filth belching factories of the UK that touched off the whole thing more than 100 years ago, and that there is little hydrocarbon producing manufacturing in either the UK or the US these days. All that sort of unpleasantness has been sent off to other places for the less privileged to choke on.
Most of the bad stuff here in the US comes from coal burning to produce electricity, automobile emissions, and farting cows, a phenomenon for which European cows hold world records.
Sadly, a tipping point has probably been reached, and when the greenhouse gasses stored in polar ice and at the (presently) frozen sea bottoms are released, its going to be very interesting.

 

[Rossini]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15565206#post15565206 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ackee
I think it's important to remember that it was the filth belching factories of the UK that touched off the whole thing more than 100 years ago, and that there is little hydrocarbon producing manufacturing in either the UK or the US these days. All that sort of unpleasantness has been sent off to other places for the less privileged to choke on.
Most of the bad stuff here in the US comes from coal burning to produce electricity, automobile emissions, and farting cows, a phenomenon for which European cows hold world records.
Sadly, a tipping point has probably been reached, and when the greenhouse gasses stored in polar ice and at the (presently) frozen sea bottoms are released, its going to be very interesting.

Actually the whole thing probabley 'started' many hundreds/thousands of years ago when humans started mass agriculture, changing land uses, deforestation etc. But yes the industrial revolution 200 years ago in the UK was when it kicked off properley.

It's no good blaming each other though. I think there has been and is a lack of political will to sort this out globally not just in the US or UK.

The tipping point has not been reached yet. The tipping point is said to be when we rise temperatures by 2 degrees C, we have already risen them 0.75. That's the threshold that could then lead us into positive feedback loops like the release of billions of tonnes of methane from arctic permafrost and many other things.

So we do have time (around 10-15 years to have brought down emmisions considerably, and then keep them coming down to 85% by 2050), we also have the technology.

Let's hope our leaders make the right decisions for us all.

 

[ackee]

I'm pleased that a blame game was not what you had in mind. Your initial post, with its "about times", "unless you", etc., did sound as though it were moving in that direction. In any case, I do agree that the political will to effect profound and often painful changes is key. General awareness of the population regarding the problem may be a precondition to the exercize of that political will, at least in democratic nations with a free press. China does not fall into that category. The US ceased to be a democratic state decades ago, and has recently lost any vestiges of a free press. What passes for public awareness in many nations is something closer to media manipulation. In the spirit of avoiding the blame issue, I will not comment on the position of the UK in all this.

The most difficult issue is, of course, immediate needs, like traditional jobs, when compared to long term problems, like the future of the planet. Meals for the kiddies today usually trumps the melting of polar ice some years hence. Financial security is especially an issue in the US, which does not have either the dole or national health insurance. As trivial as these things are in the global long run, they do affect public attitudes.

Finally, although many activities (and natural events) over the centuries have contributed to the buildup of greenhouse gasses, it was really the second industrial revolution, closer to 150 years ago, that began to produce measurable effects on the planet. The first industrial revolution used lots of things like water power, wind power, etc., in addition to moderate amounts of less benign wood and coal burning. And let's not forget the contribution of those ruminants.

 

[ctenophors rule]

hmmmm, thread stolen!

 

[Rossini]

ackee,

You have qoated me

Your initial post, with its "about times", "unless you", etc., did sound as though it were moving in that direction.

When did I say "about times" or "unless you"?







I take offence to you trying to put words in my mouth. :mad2:

 

[ackee]

Rossini, I apologize for misquoting you. Replies on this board are written without having the original post visible. Still, though I did inadvertently but carelessly put words in your mouth, (sorry you failed to enjoy the experience) the general tenor of your post did have the mildest hint of a lecturing tone, and a implicit suggestion that there has been, in the past, an inadequate awareness regarding global warming here in the US, and that because we now have a president with a three digit IQ, perhaps we'll get on board the righteousness train as our awareness expands.

All of this transliterated itself in my aging and easily distracted mind into words that you did not actually write. What you did write was, perhaps, nearly as arrogant, but not anything like what I mistakenly quoted, so again I humbly apologize, and extend my permission to you to misquote me as much as you like. I also realize that you are almost certainly ethically above such low behaviour, and I hope that my offer is not misconstrued as a suggestion that you might not be. In any case, I am deeply ashamed, and will avoid quotes of any kind in future, unless I have the original text in front of me. I know there are technical ways of doing this on message boards, but I am not really interested in computers.

 

[Michael_84]

I wouldn't accuse Obama of having a "Three Digit IQ" that statement may cause him to be held accountable in the future. I have a feeling we have another one of those get out quick and go build a library some where presidents...

I do not intend to show my support or lack there of. I am just observing a common trend w/Change Presidents... Please don't be offended by this post. I am not trying to show any affiliation!!!

 

[ackee]

May I quote you on that?

 

[Rossini]

No probs Ackee,

 

[unhpian]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15481717#post15481717 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule
, oil spills normaly occur in the middle of the ocean, not within a few inches of a reef.

for the record: wrong, wrong, wrong.
Most marine oil spills occur within 10 miles of land - because most oil spills are caused by a) transfer hose disconnects/ruptures at unloading stations b) tanker rupturs by contact with rock/reef c) oil platform blowouts, most of which occur close to land.

 

[lordofthereef]

i am researching now, but from what i have heard, sun screan is damging to reefs because, it stays on us, then we rub up against the corals, or it is washed off of us near the reef, or over the reef, etc, etc. it has more to deal with being is close contact with the reefs, oil spills normaly occur in the middle of the ocean, not within a few inches of a reef.

Ummm... you shouldn't be doing any rubbing up against corals on the reef anyway, with or without sunscreen.

 

[ackee]

It's really amusing to read about concerns regarding reef damage caused by sunscreen or ornamental fish collecting. Virtually all environmental damage is directly or indirectly connected to overpopulation. Far too many people, consuming too much, producing too much waste, and expanding their global footprint to an extent that will lead to the extinction of most of the other species with which we share this planet and which have as much 'right' to survive as humans do, is the underlying basic cause of vanishing reefs and the avalanche of extinction. Of course, human survival itself is ultimately threatened by an catastrophically expanding population. Many political leaders and most scientists understand this, but remain silent on the issue because they know there is almost nothing that can be done. We are, at root, too primitive to rise above the animal imperative to procreate without restriction. It takes a lot of discipline and motivation to rise above genetic programming.

Sooner or later the planet will follow the Easter Island scenario, unless through sheer good luck or a beneficent fate some unstoppable plague rapidly wipes out the vast majority of our species, providing another millennia or two of grace. Worrying about sunscreen is like fretting about the tarnish on the handrail of a sinking ship.

 

[Michael_84]

It's really amusing to read about concerns regarding reef damage caused by sunscreen or ornamental fish collecting. Virtually all environmental damage is directly or indirectly connected to overpopulation. Far too many people, consuming too much, producing too much waste, and expanding their global footprint to an extent that will lead to the extinction of most of the other species with which we share this planet and which have as much 'right' to survive as humans do, is the underlying basic cause of vanishing reefs and the avalanche of extinction. Of course, human survival itself is ultimately threatened by an catastrophically expanding population. Many political leaders and most scientists understand this, but remain silent on the issue because they know there is almost nothing that can be done. We are, at root, too primitive to rise above the animal imperative to procreate without restriction. It takes a lot of discipline and motivation to rise above genetic programming.

Sooner or later the planet will follow the Easter Island scenario, unless through sheer good luck or a beneficent fate some unstoppable plague rapidly wipes out the vast majority of our species, providing another millennia or two of grace. Worrying about sunscreen is like fretting about the tarnish on the handrail of a sinking ship.

Good God, Did you loose your meds....I am almost depressed...LOL

I really think one of the major population centers of the world will be taking a huge hit in the next 100 years. China has been aborting to many girls, soon it will be a country of single men, and without "Science" they will be unable to procreate. Those men will seek women outside the boarders of china and we will see a global population st-udder. Either way once the ratio of men to women changes...The pop will shrink until it reaches proper balance again....Just a thought...

 

[ackee]

Michael, China has had a one child per couple (in some cases two) policy in place since the 1960s. They realized long ago that without severly limiting and ultimately reversing their population growth there would catastrophic consequences in the very near future for them. Because they have a dictatorial centralized government, they were able to force compliance. Get pregnant one time too many, and you will loose housing, job, health coverage, etc. This policy is one reason for the gender imbalance: their society regards female children as worth very little compared to a male child, though this is changing. It's also why the many children killed when last year's earthquakes caused schools to collapse represented an unimaginable horror. For most people the child they lost was their only child.

India tried and failed to limit population growth through financial incentives. The two nations, India and China, between them have more than 40% of the world's population. The gender imbalance in China does cause difficulty even now, but the real problem with limiting population is economic, the same as the one that afflicts wealthy nations like the US. The percentage of old people becomes increasingly larger than the younger productive population that supports them. This is the root problem with the US Social Security and Medicare programs, and is also why there are policies aimed at increasing the flow of younger, tax-paying immigrants.

However you look at it, the geometrically increasing world population spells disaster in many ways. There is an excellent perspective in the analogy of a large lake which starts with just one lily pad, but has a doubling of the number of lily pads every day. The day before the lake is completely strangled by lily pads, only half the lake is covered. This is about where we stand regarding population. Not just climate change and coastal flooding, but an absence of drinking water, famine, and the massive movements of thirsty starving people that will result in global political destabilization and conflict. Meds don't change reality. They provide temporary amnesia. Remember when there were only 3 billion people? Just a few decades ago. We will very soon hit 8 and then 10 billion, and then 15 billion. We add the equivalent of the population of NYC about every day. Every day, and that's now. Soon it will be an even larger number. It's very,very bad. Enjoy what's left, because it will not be here long. I wish it were not so, but it is. I am o;d enough and have traveled enough to remember clearly the natural world of the 60s and 70s. We will not see anything as fair and lovely again.

 

[ctenophors rule]

for the record: wrong, wrong, wrong.
Most marine oil spills occur within 10 miles of land - because most oil spills are caused by a) transfer hose disconnects/ruptures at unloading stations b) tanker rupturs by contact with rock/reef c) oil platform blowouts, most of which occur close to land.

thanks, consider me corrected 8)

 

[ctenophors rule]

Ummm... you shouldn't be doing any rubbing up against corals on the reef anyway, with or without sunscreen.

your right we shouldn't. but it does happen. people do. i didn't say i did.