Let's stick to the discussion of ocean acidification
Don't make me pull over this thread....
PH in the ocean?
- Thread starter thenewguy997
- Start date
Don't make me pull over this thread....
Thales
Active member
Are you confusing the term Scientific Theory with the colloquial use of the word theory? A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. Is gravity a fact or a theory?
Oh, and to keep Bill happy - ocean acidification!
thenewguy997
New member
Theorys are also changing all the time, we hardly know anything.
Much more for us to know
Much more for us to know
thenewguy997
New member
Lol! Lets just run like 10 million skimmers outside, the perfect plan! Then shoot the waste into space!
It may seem like a joke, but people have been looking into dosing the oceans with bicarbonate as a way to combat OA. I'm afraid I don't have a good source on that one.
Iron fertilization is another area of investigation for driving plankton blooms to sequester CO2.
On a side note, I'm a proponent of sending all our nuclear waste into the sun.
Iron fertilization is another area of investigation for driving plankton blooms to sequester CO2.
On a side note, I'm a proponent of sending all our nuclear waste into the sun.
I think it is good personal policy to limit our impact on the earth. There is no good reason not to. I do not agree with making it a political situation though- whether it be in the form of regulation, or favoring grants to results based studies. Whatever the case- I do not think it will make much difference anyway. The earth will do what it will- and if we had no human greenhouse gas output- then termites, volcano activity or some other natural act will take over. Our main problem is that we are nostalgic and want things to stay the same-which defies the basic law of nature.
I think it is good personal policy to limit our impact on the earth. There is no good reason not to. I do not agree with making it a political situation though- whether it be in the form of regulation, or favoring grants to results based studies. Whatever the case- I do not think it will make much difference anyway. The earth will do what it will- and if we had no human greenhouse gas output- then termites, volcano activity or some other natural act will take over. Our main problem is that we are nostalgic and want things to stay the same-which defies the basic law of nature.
So you don't think that polluting a common area (like the atmosphere) should be controlled at all?
That I can pollute it all I want because, in the end, termites and volcanoes will destroy the earth anyway?
I now see from this thread why I rarely venture into this forum. Unfortunately, the title of pH in the ocean caught my eye.
So you don't think that polluting a common area (like the atmosphere) should be controlled at all?
That I can pollute it all I want because, in the end, termites and volcanoes will destroy the earth anyway?
I now see from this thread why I rarely venture into this forum. Unfortunately, the title of pH in the ocean caught my eye.
I'm always confused when I hear people say this. Does this mean you'd prefer throwing grant money at researchers that do such poor work that they can't produce results
If wanting things like clean air to breath, clean water to drink and clean oceans is nostalgic, than call me nostalgic. Personally I find it appalling what we dump in our oceans, and there's no reason for it other than being cheap and lazy humans. Just because the planet will go on for a few million years past our existence is not something I find is sufficient reason for us to disengage our brains and ignore the obvious.
As my first lines stated- I am all for people limiting their impact. And no I do not believe in pollution- the laws in place have radically changed the way things are compared to the sixties. As society became aware of the effects on the enviorment- they changed behaviors. We used to collect beer cans from the ditch- now you seldom see them in great numbers. People are more careful about what detergents and chemicals they use. Most of us recycle. As people become more educated, they are making lifestyle changes to lessen carbon emissions. This is all good. I am all for the gov when it comes to clean air and water legislation and the like. However, I do not think overall the gov is capable of dealing with the issue in a non partisen fashion. I see more knee jerk feel good regs that do little other than cost money, whether to the consumer or the taxpayers. But thats just my personal view.
So to clarify to the people that didnt understand my original post. We all should help the earth and not expect someone else to do it. But whatever we do- the earth will continue to change and "evolve". In no way shape or form did I say or intimate that we should just pollute because of any other force of nature.
So to clarify to the people that didnt understand my original post. We all should help the earth and not expect someone else to do it. But whatever we do- the earth will continue to change and "evolve". In no way shape or form did I say or intimate that we should just pollute because of any other force of nature.
http://crosscut.com/2014/06/16/environment/120507/aboard-rv-melville-ocean-acidfication-baskin/
Acid seas threaten creatures that supply half the world's oxygen
Ocean acidification is turning phytoplankton toxic. Bad news for the many species - us, included - that rely on them as a principal source of food and oxygen.
Acid seas threaten creatures that supply half the world's oxygen
Ocean acidification is turning phytoplankton toxic. Bad news for the many species - us, included - that rely on them as a principal source of food and oxygen.
Bad news for the many species - us, included - that rely on them as a principal source of food and oxygen.
No wonder your company's profits aren't increasing. You are probably eating the phyto as fast as the lab guys make it.
No wonder your company's profits aren't increasing. You are probably eating the phyto as fast as the lab guys make it.
Bad news for the many species - us, included - that rely on them as a principal source of food and oxygen.
No wonder your company's profits aren't increasing. You are probably eating the phyto as fast as the lab guys make it.
:lol: I don't think I could eat in my lifetime the amount we produce in a week
But yes, phyto does live in a special part of my heart!
fla2341
New member
And read: Discount the source if you like.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ortedly-expand-protected-areas-pacific-ocean/
In addition broad statements not backed up by citing actual research should always be avoided as being presented as "Facts". They become "beliefs" which are a fish of another color.
I agree the oceans are changing at a rapid pace.
I agree that there have been several ELE in the past.
These have been established in this thread by the links provided/cited.
In addition several species potentially go extinct each year and have since time immorial - all on their own.(look it up/Google it if you must)
Additional reading:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok.html
http://geoweb.princeton.edu/people/bender/lab/downloads/Petit_et_al_1999_copy.pdf
in this last above pay attention to the charts.
The planet does go through warming and cooling trends/cycles as well as fluctuations in the corresponding CO2. I hesitate to assume that the pH of the oceans fluctuated during these times but one can infer it. Please also keep in mind that human record keeping doesn't go back far enough for us to rely upon it solely as a source while speaking in geologic time.
Main question: how does/will all this effect our hobby?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ortedly-expand-protected-areas-pacific-ocean/
In addition broad statements not backed up by citing actual research should always be avoided as being presented as "Facts". They become "beliefs" which are a fish of another color.
I agree the oceans are changing at a rapid pace.
I agree that there have been several ELE in the past.
These have been established in this thread by the links provided/cited.
In addition several species potentially go extinct each year and have since time immorial - all on their own.(look it up/Google it if you must)
Additional reading:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok.html
http://geoweb.princeton.edu/people/bender/lab/downloads/Petit_et_al_1999_copy.pdf
in this last above pay attention to the charts.
The planet does go through warming and cooling trends/cycles as well as fluctuations in the corresponding CO2. I hesitate to assume that the pH of the oceans fluctuated during these times but one can infer it. Please also keep in mind that human record keeping doesn't go back far enough for us to rely upon it solely as a source while speaking in geologic time.
Main question: how does/will all this effect our hobby?
disc1
-RT * ln(k)
disc1
-RT * ln(k)
I actually didn't mean that as a joke. I've heard a few tales of outside air not helping with pH because it had such a high CO2 content in certain urban areas. I don't know if there's an truth to it, but there it is.
Not to mention that if we lose the reefs, we lose the diversity we collect from. Then any creature we can't propagate in a tank will be lost forever.
Not to mention that if we lose the reefs, we lose the diversity we collect from. Then any creature we can't propagate in a tank will be lost forever.
fla2341
New member
"Not to mention that if we lose the reefs, we lose the diversity we collect from. Then any creature we can't propagate in a tank will be lost forever."
I furvently agree with this statement.
However, in reference to my first link, there is a fine line between proper informed management and the wholesale shutting down of a region/regions based upon knee jerk political motives and not real life actualities and proper research. The belief that what we, as a nation, do will have any impact globally by it's self is at best naive. To have any lasting global impact it must be a golbal effort. While we can "lead" we can not have much, if any, effect acting alone.
I furvently agree with this statement.
However, in reference to my first link, there is a fine line between proper informed management and the wholesale shutting down of a region/regions based upon knee jerk political motives and not real life actualities and proper research. The belief that what we, as a nation, do will have any impact globally by it's self is at best naive. To have any lasting global impact it must be a golbal effort. While we can "lead" we can not have much, if any, effect acting alone.
thenewguy997
New member
If biodiversity goes then everything goes..
disc1
-RT * ln(k)
So what you're basically saying is that unless everyone is going to participate then nobody should do anything? That turns circular really quick since it leaves no room for anyone to be first.
Everyone else throws their trash out the car window, so I guess I should too. Is that the idea here?
Similar threads
