Our starving oceans ~ the cause of mass coral bleaching & global warming?

[davidryder]

Originally posted by Peter Eichler
I think it's a good think that these posts are made and just because it is a hotly debated topic doesn't mean we should avoid posting articles such as this. It does relate to our hobby and the animals we love. People just need to learn to have a healthy debate and not take things personally when someone doesn't agree with their thinking. The problem isn't the topic of the debate, it's the participants.

I agree!!

[vessxpress1]

FWIW, I was watching one of those new Discovery channel documentaries, 'Planet Earth' and they had time lapse satellite imagery of Antarctica for an entire year. It showed what the continent does based on the changing seasons.

In short, during it's summer time, the continent shrinks. Over the winter, the surrounding water re-freezes and essentially DOUBLES the size of the continent. This happens annually. I saw it before my eyes.

It was just a documentary on antarctica and it's wildlife, not about global warming.

[davidryder]

Originally posted by vessxpress1
FWIW, I was watching one of those new Discovery channel documentaries, 'Planet Earth' and they had time lapse satellite imagery of Antarctica for an entire year. It showed what the continent does based on the changing seasons.

In short, during it's summer time, the continent shrinks. Over the winter, the surrounding water re-freezes and essentially DOUBLES the size of the continent. This happens annually. I saw it before my eyes.

It was just a documentary on antarctica and it's wildlife, not about global warming.

According to the producers Planet Earth was done to raise our awareness about the current climate changes and the amount of damage it's causing. I have seen them all on HD and is one of the most amazing shows I've ever seen on HD!!

Rarrr ... ok,

I think the larger our population gets the more strain we are going to put on the earth. No way can we put an infinite amount of hardship on the earth and expect it to continue to sustain itself healthily. There will come a point when it's in our face and we won't be able to turn our heads from it. Right now I think it's a lot of speculation - too much speculation - but regardless we should be good stewards to the place we live. What's happening to the Earth is not in debate by either side - it's what's causing it. I think this whole debate is because there is one party that doesn't want to be responsible thus having to take action, and the other side is simply fighting to care for the earth. It is highly political and both sides have very strong points. But for every article or study done by one side another article dismissing or disproving it comes about from the other side.

[stuccodude]

its all about the money!! i could go on and on on this one but its dinner time, good luck y'all, religion and politics= discussion and money

[Rhodesholar]

But for every article or study done by one side another article dismissing or disproving it comes about from the other side.

Yes but the million dollar question is who is lying and who is telling the truth and what agendas are they pushing?

Let me pose an open question to anyone reading this thread. If you were about to become sole owner of an oil company and as of midnight tonight were about to be worth 5 billion, would you work to prove fossil fuels cause global warming?

[saltydude]

It is sad about the polarbears, I am just thankful I wasnt born as one. And I am glad the earth is warming up, I get tired of long winters. I watched part of Al Gores movie, but had to keep in mind that he earns his living off of sensationalism. If he is so concerned with global warming, why doesnt he drive a hybrid vehicle to his racket rallys and not a 10 cylinder limo? Give me a break. I have come to terms with the fact that humans have destroyed the earth and are now in a frenzy over how to deal with this unfixable problem.

[saltydude]

Can I get a witness!!!

[antonsemrad]

Originally posted by davidryder


I think the larger our population gets the more strain we are going to put on the earth. No way can we put an infinite amount of hardship on the earth and expect it to continue to sustain itself healthily. There will come a point when it's in our face and we won't be able to turn our heads from it..

Are Humans Smarter Than Yeast?

(may I spare 8 minutes of your time?)

[davidryder]

Originally posted by antonsemrad
Are Humans Smarter Than Yeast?

(may I spare 8 minutes of your time?)

Yes you may!!! Thanks for that - such a simple point that is never talked about.

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by Kalkbreath
I think you might find that this authors take on Co2 and how the Ocean plays the greatest role is well documented and needs to be heard.
She feels mankind has removed too much Carbon (fish and whales) from the seas. and this has created an imbalance which causes the ocean to release more Co2 then it has in the past.
The author explains how the increase in Co2 began before year 1900 and how this was before man made Co2 even started.
How the yearly increased build up in the atmosphere (2.5) has remained about the same each year since 1880,(except during WW2) regardless of mankind's increased out put with fossil fuels.
We increased man made Co2 by 2000 percent since 1880 and even doubled the amount of man made Co2 since 1960 yet the increase in the atmosphere is about the same as it was in the early 1900s?
(about 2.5)

This seems to fly in the face of current agendas.

Hey Kalk, remember me? They have done many studies that show that the ocean is a net carbon sink, not a source, and it has been sinking more CO2 now than it has in the past. If it wasn't for the ocean, the atmosphere would have much more CO2 in it. The increase in atmospheric (and oceanic) CO2 is not coming from the ocean, it's from humans burning fossil fuels.

[RichConley]

Originally posted by 10" Red Devil
“The rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels that is currently occurring on the planet is, to significant extent, a direct consequence of human removal of life from the sea."

This statement does not make sense. How does removal of a small percentage of life from the seas contribute to the build up of co2 levels in the atmosphere?

Whales are carbon based lifeforms. Whales eat hundreds of tons of plankton a year. When you drive whale populations down from millions of animals, to under 1000, and turn them all into candle wax, you release all that carbon back into the air. At this point, (atleast on the US east coast) fish populations aren't even 5% of what they were 100 years ago. This is by no means a small percent.


Basically, up until the last couple of years, forests were really the only considered carbon sinks...now we're realizing that theres more in play here.

[RichConley]

Originally posted by Aquabucket
What's different about this article is not your typical global warming scenario in which fossil fuels are the cause. This article is all about overfishing and its possible impact on a global level. I think we can all agree that something needs to change with regard to overfishing in order to preserve our oceans valuable and complex ecosystems.

Its not just ocean life though, its the destruction of large parts of the ecosystem in general. Billions of Bison in the great plains, millions of bears, etc in europe....

[Kalkbreath]

Yes I do....
You (they)still can explain why the Co2 rise began long (1800s)before humans began to use fossil fuels or why the rise in atmosphere levels doesn't seem to follow the rise in human consumption. ( still only about 2.5 percent as it was in 1920s.
Or why the levels are higher over the Oceans.
Or why the levels change with el Nino , la Nina warm ocean water events...
Or why even increased wild fires events like this year in America and Africa seem to have zero effect on that years rise in Co2.
One good wild fire like the current one burning in south Georgia releases more metric tons of Co2 into the atmosphere then all US. automobiles will for the entire year.
Yet the global increase will still be the same as it was 90 years ago.(2.5 -3.0).

and lastly before you get on the Carbon 14 train again. Keep in mind that this very topic (the Ocean is to blame for Co2) supports the notion of a decreasing carbon 14 level and can be directly traced to Ocean plants obtaining some of their carbon from dissolved carbonates which are likely to be very old, and thus deficient in the carbon-14 isotope, so fish , plankton and ocean Mammals who eat them dont rally have much Carbon 14 locked up inside their tissues compared to land animals and plants and thus when marine flora and fauna are released into the atmosphere through decay will tip the Carbon scale showing that the newly released carbon is from very old source. ( just like petro)
Also the majority of the Co2 in the Ocean is from ancient Limestone and Carbonic origins so when it reacts with the air it is released without much Carbon 14.
Lastly didnt you hear? the Southern oceans' full and has been saturated for some time!

[Peter Eichler]

Originally posted by saltydude
It is sad about the polarbears, I am just thankful I wasnt born as one. And I am glad the earth is warming up, I get tired of long winters. I watched part of Al Gores movie, but had to keep in mind that he earns his living off of sensationalism. If he is so concerned with global warming, why doesnt he drive a hybrid vehicle to his racket rallys and not a 10 cylinder limo? Give me a break. I have come to terms with the fact that humans have destroyed the earth and are now in a frenzy over how to deal with this unfixable problem.

Thing is global warming isn't the term so much anymore as climate change is. Yes, the temps are increasing, but it's mainly around the polar icecaps. Global warming/climate change could very well lead to longer and colder winters in many areas, it mostly deals in extremes once you get away from the icecaps. It very well could be that this past winter in the midwest and east coast could be a sign of things to come.

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by Kalkbreath
Yes I do....
You (they)still can explain why the Co2 rise began long (1800s)before humans began to use fossil fuels or why the rise in atmosphere levels doesn't seem to follow the rise in human consumption. ( still only about 2.5 percent as it was in 1920s.

The industrial revolution started in the late 1700's, and the reason the rise in CO2 isn't as high as is could be is because the planet is absorbing a lot of it. Otherwise it would be around 500 ppm, instead of ~380 ppm.

Originally posted by Kalkbreath
Or why the levels are higher over the Oceans. Or why the levels change with el Nino , la Nina warm ocean water events...

It's higher over parts of the ocean, not all of it. That's because the ocean outgasses CO2 in SOME areas, ESPECIALLY over el Nino waters because warmer waters can't hold as much CO2 (which makes ocean warming even more dangerous). But, again, the ocean is an overall SINK.

Originally posted by Kalkbreath
Or why even increased wild fires events like this year in America and Africa seem to have zero effect on that years rise in Co2.

Burning plants is indistinguishable from burning fossil fuels, and the CO2 levels keep rising, so I don't know how that's an argument.

Originally posted by Kalkbreath
and lastly before you get on the Carbon 14 train again. Keep in mind that this very topic (the Ocean is to blame for Co2) supports the notion of a decreasing carbon 14 level and can be directly traced to Ocean plants obtaining some of their carbon from dissolved carbonates which are likely to be very old, and thus deficient in the carbon-14 isotope, so fish , plankton and ocean Mammals who eat them dont rally have much Carbon 14 locked up inside their tissues compared to land animals and plants and thus when marine flora and fauna are released into the atmosphere through decay will tip the Carbon scale showing that the newly released carbon is from very old source. ( just like petro)

It's not C14, it's the C13/C12 ratio that shows the increase is from burning plant based material (trees, oil, etc), so I don't really know where you're going with this one.

Originally posted by Kalkbreath
Also the majority of the Co2 in the Ocean is from ancient Limestone and Carbonic origins so when it reacts with the air it is released without much Carbon 14.
Lastly didnt you hear? the Southern oceans' full and has been saturated for some time!

Saturated for at least 25 years, but it's only part of the ocean. Still, that's pretty sad. The CNN article I read about that has this to say as well:

"Since the beginning of the industrial revolution the world's oceans have absorbed about a quarter of the 500 gigatons of carbon emitted into the atmosphere by humans," Chris Rapley of the British Antarctic Survey said in a statement.

Having said all that, I agree with you that we need to stop overfishing, as I'm sure it's having unforeseen impacts, I just don't think the evidence points to global warming.

[washingtond]

Originally posted by stuccodude
its all about the money!! i could go on and on on this one but its dinner time, good luck y'all, religion and politics= discussion and money

I agree that it is about money. Just wait for the carbon footprint tax remember everyone has an agenda of some kind. There is no doubt that warming is taking place but is it a natural cycle (yes) could man be making it worse (maybe) and since I’m not an expert so this is where I get off the bus and go on with life. I just want the facts and will makeup my own mind but will not try to impose my feelings on others as too much of this is speculation.

[sublime-1]

I have a rather elementary question, and I don't really want to be involved in a debate about scientific theory.

On the topic of the ocean being the key contributor of Carbon Di-oxide in the atmosphere

Isn't the process of photosynthesis in all organic plant material converting CO2 into oxygen ?

Does it stand to reason that there are more cubic meters of vegetative growth on the planet then there are animals, fish, insects, humans, and automobiles ? Including the algae, seaweed, and plant life in the oceans, rivers and forests ?

Thus, wouldn't the production in Oxygen exceed the production of CO2 ?

[10" Red Devil]

Originally posted by davidryder
According to the producers Planet Earth was done to raise our awareness about the current climate changes and the amount of damage it's causing. I have seen them all on HD and is one of the most amazing shows I've ever seen on HD!!

Rarrr ... ok,

I think the larger our population gets the more strain we are going to put on the earth. No way can we put an infinite amount of hardship on the earth and expect it to continue to sustain itself healthily. There will come a point when it's in our face and we won't be able to turn our heads from it. Right now I think it's a lot of speculation - too much speculation - but regardless we should be good stewards to the place we live. What's happening to the Earth is not in debate by either side - it's what's causing it. I think this whole debate is because there is one party that doesn't want to be responsible thus having to take action, and the other side is simply fighting to care for the earth. It is highly political and both sides have very strong points. But for every article or study done by one side another article dismissing or disproving it comes about from the other side.

This is such a Key point and really at the heart of a lot of things wrong with the world today!

[vessxpress1]

My question is, what should we all expect? Should we realistically expect the entire Earth to stay at a completely stable temperature forever?

I think there are a lot of factors in play, beyond humans, that causes the Earth to be in a constant state of at least gradual change.

Would global cooling be better? If it gets a couple degrees warmer, plants can still grow. If it got colder, to the point where we were having longer winters, approaching ice age type climate, = little to no plant growth. Which means no food for us our livestock which means no food! And then we'd have to burn more fossil fuels to heat the entire planet, with less plant life absorbing it.

I think it's ludicrous to expect the Earth to stay completely stable over the years. It just isn't going to happen and we're probably better off that it is warming and not cooling, if indeed it is.

[useskaforevil]

Originally posted by Rhodesholar
But for every article or study done by one side another article dismissing or disproving it comes about from the other side.

Yes but the million dollar question is who is lying and who is telling the truth and what agendas are they pushing?

Let me pose an open question to anyone reading this thread. If you were about to become sole owner of an oil company and as of midnight tonight were about to be worth 5 billion, would you work to prove fossil fuels cause global warming?

and if you were a company marketing a "green" product what would your studies say?

[davidryder]

Originally posted by useskaforevil
and if you were a company marketing a "green" product what would your studies say?

Exactly... I'm sure there are just as many if not moving fast to the point of the same amount of companies that profit from 'green' products as not. Whichever side somebody is on only sees that side... USUALLY... there are exceptions to the rule, but this is an obvious us vs them battle and will continue to be until one side wins.

[antonsemrad]

Originally posted by sublime-1
I have a rather elementary question, and I don't really want to be involved in a debate about scientific theory.

On the topic of the ocean being the key contributor of Carbon Di-oxide in the atmosphere

Isn't the process of photosynthesis in all organic plant material converting CO2 into oxygen ?

Does it stand to reason that there are more cubic meters of vegetative growth on the planet then there are animals, fish, insects, humans, and automobiles ? Including the algae, seaweed, and plant life in the oceans, rivers and forests ?

Thus, wouldn't the production in Oxygen exceed the production of CO2 ?

I was thinking the same thing.
Over the lifetime of any fish, whale, or any living creature, do they sequester, or produce more C02?

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the loss of marine calcium carbonate binding organisms, and trees would have a larger impact than fish, bison, passenger pigeons and the like on atmospheric C02levels.

[justinzimm]

If your still not convinced that GW is cause by man maybe you can look at from a different point of view...

By most estimates (BP and others) the worlds known oil supply will run out in the next 50 years. We will need to find other (hopefully) renewable sources of energy.

Why support countries that hate us by buying oil from them? Without the oil money they wouldn't have the power they have over us now. I'm tired of watching the stock market drop ever time some crazy makes a video or threatens to holdback our oil.

Why not want to get a jump start on new automobile and energy technology that is developing elsewhere? We're already behind compared to Europe and Brazil. Remember Oil WILL run out and cars will have to run on something! By dragging our feet are only guaranteeing that we are the last ones to benefit.

There are allot of things that I don't agree with today but also don't affect me. So I don't waste my time with them. If you don't beleive that man is causing GW, then you should just let it be. Let the other people buy the hybrid cars and invest in renewable energy. You can hold on to your 2004 SUV and in 2050 we'll watch and reminisce as you drive by.

[Kalkbreath]

Ever wonder why there has not been any increase in temperature here in the USA?
For the past 100 years the temperatures in North America are just about the same as it was in the early 1900s.
You would think the single greatest source of Co2 would experience at least some of the so called warming we Americans are being blamed for?

[RichConley]

Originally posted by antonsemrad
I was thinking the same thing.
Over the lifetime of any fish, whale, or any living creature, do they sequester, or produce more C02?

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the loss of marine calcium carbonate binding organisms, and trees would have a larger impact than fish, bison, passenger pigeons and the like on atmospheric C02levels.

Theyre carbon based. They grow. Therefore they sequester more than they release.