ca1ore
10K Club member
Excellence Award
Reef Tank 365
CTARS Member
Article Contributor
R2R TV Featured
That was not my point .... though my dog doesn’t fetch balls either ..... hmmn.
What will happen when our pets become critically endangered?
- Thread starter csb123
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
That was not my point .... though my dog doesn’t fetch balls either ..... hmmn.
Sarah24!
2500 Club Member
Hello,
After reading through all five pages it makes me at times want to respond, and other times not so much. Yes it is true that the planet has gone through several climate changes through out millions of years. However, during those times human were not involved, humans did not polute the earth, or wreck ships into reefs and destroy the rain forests.
We need to look at what we are doing as a species, and how it will actually affect the planet. But, in reality unless everyone is willing to make a change, then there really is no point in this debate. As a mankind has shown, we produce tons and tons of waste, we have caused other species to go extinct. We have done this by destroying different ecosystems like the rain forests to name one of them.
It has been shown and proven that vehicles emissions are bad for the environment. We all know this, we all know in order to fix this we should stop driving our cars. We all still drive, we all know it harms the planet (Yes I’m guilty also). We also know factories, and fracking and oil drilling are bad but we still do it, because we will not change.
Most people won’t worry or care, because honestly we may not live to see what happens when it does finally come crashing down. When information is published in a scientific journal, they have to have enough evidence, research, etc to even publish it. If we for one second could take the human variable out of global warming, what would the results be? Seriously, if we could take two identical rain forests or barrier reefs, one with a humans in it, and one with out, would they come out the same? I’m pretty sure the rain forests animals don’t have ways to clear cut trees. Pretty sure Nemo and dory don’t have massive cruise ships that they sail in. That’s not to say they can’t be wiped out by a fire, but it’s rains 90% of the time anyway. How about the ships that have crashed into the reefs, and destroyed parts of them? Yes, there the possibility of destruction from Mother Nature we all know this. But how much cleaner, and what would the climate be with out humans?
Yes, it does worry me, because someday down the road when this ecosystem crashes for one reason or another, I really hope that I haven’t done something to make others suffer.
After reading through all five pages it makes me at times want to respond, and other times not so much. Yes it is true that the planet has gone through several climate changes through out millions of years. However, during those times human were not involved, humans did not polute the earth, or wreck ships into reefs and destroy the rain forests.
We need to look at what we are doing as a species, and how it will actually affect the planet. But, in reality unless everyone is willing to make a change, then there really is no point in this debate. As a mankind has shown, we produce tons and tons of waste, we have caused other species to go extinct. We have done this by destroying different ecosystems like the rain forests to name one of them.
It has been shown and proven that vehicles emissions are bad for the environment. We all know this, we all know in order to fix this we should stop driving our cars. We all still drive, we all know it harms the planet (Yes I’m guilty also). We also know factories, and fracking and oil drilling are bad but we still do it, because we will not change.
Most people won’t worry or care, because honestly we may not live to see what happens when it does finally come crashing down. When information is published in a scientific journal, they have to have enough evidence, research, etc to even publish it. If we for one second could take the human variable out of global warming, what would the results be? Seriously, if we could take two identical rain forests or barrier reefs, one with a humans in it, and one with out, would they come out the same? I’m pretty sure the rain forests animals don’t have ways to clear cut trees. Pretty sure Nemo and dory don’t have massive cruise ships that they sail in. That’s not to say they can’t be wiped out by a fire, but it’s rains 90% of the time anyway. How about the ships that have crashed into the reefs, and destroyed parts of them? Yes, there the possibility of destruction from Mother Nature we all know this. But how much cleaner, and what would the climate be with out humans?
Yes, it does worry me, because someday down the road when this ecosystem crashes for one reason or another, I really hope that I haven’t done something to make others suffer.
I am not really worried, i have found that at least in my home temperature is not a factor. Nuttrant is, my coral bleaches when they don't have NO3 and PO4. I believe over fishing is the cause of the reefs bleaching. Trawlers take huge amounts of fish out every hour. I wish i has the money to sit and try to dose a bleached reef with NO3 and see what would happen
csb123
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2016
- Messages
- 779
- Reaction score
- 769
I am, but only in the sense that they will be left to deal with the mess our forefathers, and our selves, have created. No modern person would accuse us of under populating the Earth.
As one of the previous posts alluded to, our reefs may become “arks” of species no longer found in the wild. This, for me, would alter how I approach or view my reef. It would be less of a hobby, and more something of deeper and broader responsibility.
mike werner
2500 Club Member
Hey folks,Please read this thread!I know we all have opinions but I feel some here could express their opinions in a nicer/cordial way.JMO.
It is a tough topic and both sides do deserve to be heard.
For me it's a little of both but i'm staying out of this discussion for"health reasons".
And csb123,I think you did start a debate!
Sorry don't know why but having trouble getting the thread to link but here's the post. ,If someone would link it I would greatly appreciate it.
Please think about what you write before you post and be KIND.
It is a tough topic and both sides do deserve to be heard.
For me it's a little of both but i'm staying out of this discussion for"health reasons".
And csb123,I think you did start a debate!
Sorry don't know why but having trouble getting the thread to link but here's the post. ,If someone would link it I would greatly appreciate it.
Please think about what you write before you post and be KIND.
Last edited:
Greaps
Active Member
The climate changes from time to time, there a pattern of warming and cooling. Multiple Ice Ages are documented with subsequent warming periods as well. Its has also be documented that during a warming period, there can by deeper fluctuations where things cool down some or warm up some within the period.
A little google search on the topic would go a long way to avoid firmly placing your belief on what is settled onto everyone else.
I think what bothers many people about the subject is the obvious hypocrisy that exist by the believers and the fatalism. Everyone is guilty in this framework. Either you consume to much, drive to much, own to large a house, are employed by it, have to many children, or just simply exist to long and you are contributing to the death of our world.With such a fatalistic world view on life and humanity how can one feel good knowing the settled science, well I can virtue signal and blame others and therefore cleanse myself.
I think we would all be better giving up the hobby and go hug some tree's as the carbon price of harvesting marine animals, boats, massive ships, air shipping, not to mention that little carbon pile that is a Red Sea Reefer is in your house needs to go.
A little google search on the topic would go a long way to avoid firmly placing your belief on what is settled onto everyone else.
I think what bothers many people about the subject is the obvious hypocrisy that exist by the believers and the fatalism. Everyone is guilty in this framework. Either you consume to much, drive to much, own to large a house, are employed by it, have to many children, or just simply exist to long and you are contributing to the death of our world.With such a fatalistic world view on life and humanity how can one feel good knowing the settled science, well I can virtue signal and blame others and therefore cleanse myself.
I think we would all be better giving up the hobby and go hug some tree's as the carbon price of harvesting marine animals, boats, massive ships, air shipping, not to mention that little carbon pile that is a Red Sea Reefer is in your house needs to go.
Last edited by a moderator:
How is it that?
Bans like these come and go all the time. it changes with each area and never stay the same. this time next year there could be no ban at all. The ban that is in place now could had been put there because of money, pay off, or because feelings being hurt over something else. These countries that have governments that are that only care about money and power as much or more the ours needs no reason at all for a ban to be put into place and can never be predicted unless the coral harvesters go to them with more money.
The problem I see is it is not just temperature change they have to survive this time.
Its also pollution and PH change. Also it seems temps may be moving faster than before.
I have been diving quarries here in WI and there are coral skeletons there, so there were at one time reefs this far North.
To other questions.
Do I believe in global warming sure it has happened before so why not now.
I also believe it is happening even faster now because of man.
How can it not with aver a billion cars on the road and that is just cars, not planes, trains trucks etc.
We do not see much of the increase yet because the oceans are absorbing allot of it.
biophilia
Well-Known Member
edit: Never mind.
A quick reminder to all: A Google search will tell you all sorts of tantalizing things that can easily fit into whatever your existing worldview is. "The earth is flat!" "Vaccines cause autism!" "Garlic cures ich!" "The climate has always changed so therefore humans can't have a causal influence!"
... Which is why it's really crucial to put on your critical thinking hat and look at the sources. Ask yourself, is "Business Inside News" likely to be a reliable primary source for planetary sciences? What about YouTube? Blogspot.com? Is NASA? Is The Journal of Earth Science and Climatic Change? Which should you choose and why? If you were slated to have open heart surgery, would you consult with a cardiothoracic surgeon or your local electrician? If you were attempting to treat a case of ich in your tank, who would be a more reliable source for treatment information: an ichthyologist specializing in marine fish disease or Bob from the local reefing club who swears that ground up pine-cones and turnips are a sure-fire cure?
There are serious issues facing both the future of our hobby and, more importantly, the future of life on Earth. These issues deserve to be taken seriously and won't be until we come to the collective realization that while proposed solutions may be partisan, evidence of the underlying pathology is not.
A quick reminder to all: A Google search will tell you all sorts of tantalizing things that can easily fit into whatever your existing worldview is. "The earth is flat!" "Vaccines cause autism!" "Garlic cures ich!" "The climate has always changed so therefore humans can't have a causal influence!"
... Which is why it's really crucial to put on your critical thinking hat and look at the sources. Ask yourself, is "Business Inside News" likely to be a reliable primary source for planetary sciences? What about YouTube? Blogspot.com? Is NASA? Is The Journal of Earth Science and Climatic Change? Which should you choose and why? If you were slated to have open heart surgery, would you consult with a cardiothoracic surgeon or your local electrician? If you were attempting to treat a case of ich in your tank, who would be a more reliable source for treatment information: an ichthyologist specializing in marine fish disease or Bob from the local reefing club who swears that ground up pine-cones and turnips are a sure-fire cure?
There are serious issues facing both the future of our hobby and, more importantly, the future of life on Earth. These issues deserve to be taken seriously and won't be until we come to the collective realization that while proposed solutions may be partisan, evidence of the underlying pathology is not.
Last edited:
Dburr1014
7500 Club Member
Agreed.
Scientists have taken core from the earth and ice dating centuries back. The earth is in a sine wave of heating and cooling. Right now we happen to be on a heating trend. It may (probably) be escalated by the presents of man and his doings here on earth.
But, having said that, the earth, IMHO, also has a way of healing itself with time. Unfortunately, man, certainly us reading this, will not be around to see this.
I hope that we continue to re-seed the oceans and trade home-grown corals so we don't need to take anymore out in the future. I would hate for someone to say that we are all outlaws for having corals in our tanks at home because they are all endangered.
Scrubber_steve
2500 Club Member
Dangerous Global Cooling, and Why Geoengineers Would Never Seriously Consider CO2 as a Mitigation Tool
So, the global average temperature of the Earth has fallen by 2°C and is on a downward trend. Massive starvation is occurring as a consequence of food shortages caused by severe frosts & loss of suitable farming habitat at elevation and within the northern and southern temperate zones. The occurrence of severe & extreme weather events has increased two-fold due to the growing divergence in temperature between the tropics and Polar Regions. Infrastructure & transport systems, never designed to function in such an environment have collapsed. The world as we know it is in pure chaos. Adaptation is considered too costly, and the elite government scientists insist we must act now, not merely to prevent further cooling, but to increase the global average temperature, or the Earth is doomed.
What to do?
Will increasing atmospheric CO2 be a realistic tool to effectively warm the planet and re-establish the once unappreciated Goldie Locks climate that existed?
No!
Back to reality: The present science regarding the physics of CO2 is well constrained, understood, non -controversial & widely accepted. It tells us that the effect on the global average temperature of the Earth, directly from atmospheric CO2, if it is doubled (2 x CO2) will result in a maximum of 1°C warming.
Presently atmospheric CO2 is at around 400ppm. Increasing it by 400ppm (a doubling) would take a long time. It has only increased by around 130ppm since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. At the rate of increase since the late 1950s it would take around 240 years to reach a 400ppm increase, & in the case of a dangerous global cooling world, that would not be fast enough.
But now consider; once CO2 has finally doubled, from 400ppm to 800ppm, only 1°C of warming has been achieved. In a dangerous global cooling world, where by this time the temperature may have fallen another 1°C, we will need more than a 2°C rise in global temperature. But to get another 1°C rise in temperature from CO2 the science says that we will need to double its atmospheric content again. That now means an increase of 800ppm, to 1600ppm, and a doubling of the time it took to increase it by 400ppm.
Better come up with a better plan.
So, the global average temperature of the Earth has fallen by 2°C and is on a downward trend. Massive starvation is occurring as a consequence of food shortages caused by severe frosts & loss of suitable farming habitat at elevation and within the northern and southern temperate zones. The occurrence of severe & extreme weather events has increased two-fold due to the growing divergence in temperature between the tropics and Polar Regions. Infrastructure & transport systems, never designed to function in such an environment have collapsed. The world as we know it is in pure chaos. Adaptation is considered too costly, and the elite government scientists insist we must act now, not merely to prevent further cooling, but to increase the global average temperature, or the Earth is doomed.
What to do?
Will increasing atmospheric CO2 be a realistic tool to effectively warm the planet and re-establish the once unappreciated Goldie Locks climate that existed?
No!
Back to reality: The present science regarding the physics of CO2 is well constrained, understood, non -controversial & widely accepted. It tells us that the effect on the global average temperature of the Earth, directly from atmospheric CO2, if it is doubled (2 x CO2) will result in a maximum of 1°C warming.
Presently atmospheric CO2 is at around 400ppm. Increasing it by 400ppm (a doubling) would take a long time. It has only increased by around 130ppm since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. At the rate of increase since the late 1950s it would take around 240 years to reach a 400ppm increase, & in the case of a dangerous global cooling world, that would not be fast enough.
But now consider; once CO2 has finally doubled, from 400ppm to 800ppm, only 1°C of warming has been achieved. In a dangerous global cooling world, where by this time the temperature may have fallen another 1°C, we will need more than a 2°C rise in global temperature. But to get another 1°C rise in temperature from CO2 the science says that we will need to double its atmospheric content again. That now means an increase of 800ppm, to 1600ppm, and a doubling of the time it took to increase it by 400ppm.
Better come up with a better plan.
HawaiianReef
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2017
- Messages
- 698
- Reaction score
- 674
Growing up in Hawaii (since 1968) I started spending time in the ocean. That was around 1971-72. I surfed, freedive, sailed, I even had a sailboat since 1993 that I lived on and off. I saw first hand what happens to reefs from pollutants and warmer waters. The past 20 yrs I was heavy into feediving for reef fish. The big game was "Uhu" or parrot fish. I used to see 12-15 lbs Uhu everywhere on the northshore. About 10 years ago, less every year. It got to the point where I didnt care if I bagged one, I was just so happy to see one 8-10 lbs. The reefs are just blowned out. They look like plain rock. I started going out further and started fishing for blue water fish. But there like 80-100' deep. That deep you can only go down once and then you have to rest for 20-30min at the surface to oxygenate your blood. Not much fun. At least not like reef diving.
But yeah, there's been a Frickin HUGE change on reefs. And Hawaii is 2500 mi. from anything and Still feeling the impact
But yeah, there's been a Frickin HUGE change on reefs. And Hawaii is 2500 mi. from anything and Still feeling the impact
MyReefRobbedMe
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2018
- Messages
- 411
- Reaction score
- 301
Earth has been getting warmer since ice age . Nothing to do with man unless you wanna debate how man changed the core temperature to make it look more dramatic
Scorpius
2500 Club Member
Hey R2R moderators and owners. It would behove you to have a sub-forum for political issues like this thread. I for one don't want to see threads like this in the the Reef Discussion Forum. It never ends well and people get upset and banned.
Carry on.....
Carry on.....
- Status
Similar threads
