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

[saltydude]

I do not mean to be rude, but... I find it funny to hear what everyone is saying. What all of you are doing is repeating what someone else repeated, kind of like eating someone elses throwup and throwing it back up for the next " I am smart, hear me roar!" person who actually thinks he/she is actually making a point ohter then how helpless all of us are, to come along and eat it. Bottom line is that bickering about it on line with complete strangers is not only pointless but exhausting. But the psyche behind all of our discussion is that we are scared and feel powerless. To talk about something more relevant, how about the Phillies this year? They are doing alright!

[davidryder]

Originally posted 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?

Mainly b/c it's just not that simple. Our temperatures aren't dependent only on factors inside our territory. Just as there are other territories whose climate may be affected by our change in climate, or vice versa. I'm by no means a scientist, but surely that correlation is vastly oversimplified...

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by saltydude
I do not mean to be rude, but... I find it funny to hear what everyone is saying. What all of you are doing is repeating what someone else repeated, kind of like eating someone elses throwup and throwing it back up for the next " I am smart, hear me roar!" person who actually thinks he/she is actually making a point ohter then how helpless all of us are, to come along and eat it. Bottom line is that bickering about it on line with complete strangers is not only pointless but exhausting. But the psyche behind all of our discussion is that we are scared and feel powerless. To talk about something more relevant, how about the Phillies this year? They are doing alright!

Unless you do your own research, you're bound to repeat what others say, and even then most of your knowledge isn't your own. Regardless, this discussion is needed, unlike the Phillies.

[davidryder]

Originally posted by HippieSmell
Unless you do your own research, you're bound to repeat what others say, and even then most of your knowledge isn't your own. Regardless, this discussion is needed, unlike the Phillies.

LOL

Here's what I think... no matter what I know or think unless it is definitively proven it goes back to my own fundamental beliefs. I don't think affirming something as true without knowing for sure is very... umm well you finish the sentence. Pretending to know something you don't is just that - pretending.

While I may firmly believe that we are contributing to the demise of the earth, that's all it is - belief. There are enough articles to prove AND disprove my stance. I think there are certain personalities that enjoy fighting... whether it's founded doesn't always necessarily matter. Most people whom have decided what they believe arrived at that conclusion well before they started doing heavy research. And even if they did arrive at that conclusion after a lot of research, it had to be biased because there is plenty of evidence to put anyone on either side of the fence - and very justifiably. I could post 50 articles proving that we are destroying the planet. Then I could post 50 more disproving it... there is no denying it - there is a sharp delineation between the two groups regarding GW...

Why does it matter why it's happening? The fact is we should practice a little teamwork and be good stewards to our planet whether it's falling apart or not. I think a lot of us tend to be short sighted and it takes a brick in the face for a lot of us to respond. I think that unless we unite it will be that brick in our face that REQUIRES us to respond... and of course by that time it will probably be too late.

[antonsemrad]

Originally posted by RichConley
Theyre carbon based. They grow. Therefore they sequester more than they release.

But, animals inhale oxygen-and exhale C02. Plants are a bit different.

How do you figure?

[saltydude]

Good point DavidRyder, I apologize for sounding too simple or single minded. You make some good points especially when it comes to proving or disproving something. And to answer my own question SmellyHippie, yes the phillies are doing good and yes they are relevent. They inspire hope. And the word is that one of their players drives a hybrid, so that tells me they really care about the earth. Could this be the first "Green team" in baseball? That would be cool! GO VEGANS!

[boxfishpooalot]

Guys overfishing puts more Co2 in the atmosphere. Why?

A fish is born. It has 1 carbon molcule. It needs to eat. So it eats some plankton, the carbon from that plankton becomes part of the fish. The fish grows.It now has 25 carbon molecules. The fish then eats some algae. The algae removed Co2 from the water to grow. That Co2 is in the fish now.The fish grows bigger, its total carbon is now 100 carbon molecules. The fish then dies of old age. It sinks to the seafloor. On the floor, microrganisms eat its carbon, worms, pods ect. The carbon remains stored partially in other organisms.

What happens when we take the fish from the water? Well, we reduce the fish populations and the carbon that can be stored in the mass of fish. And if we eat this fish, the carbon does not function at the same speed on land, as it does in the ocean. If the fish remain in the ocean, their populations would change with availble food. But humans are destroying the natural balance that keeps the carbon in the ocean. That is ,we do not belong in the oceans ecosystem as a predator! Ecosystems are fragile. We all know that through aquariums.

The main thing with the fish populations is they are declining and not increasing like they should be with increasing carbon dioxide levels. Algae are quick to respond to the increased Co2 in the air, growing at faster rates. But where are the fish to eat it?

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by davidryder
Here's what I think... no matter what I know or think unless it is definitively proven it goes back to my own fundamental beliefs. I don't think affirming something as true without knowing for sure is very... umm well you finish the sentence. Pretending to know something you don't is just that - pretending.

While I may firmly believe that we are contributing to the demise of the earth, that's all it is - belief. There are enough articles to prove AND disprove my stance.

It's not a belief if you can prove it, that's the point of science, showing that something isn't simply a belief.

Originally posted by davidryder
I could post 50 articles proving that we are destroying the planet. Then I could post 50 more disproving it... there is no denying it - there is a sharp delineation between the two groups regarding GW...

I'm tired of people saying this. No, you CAN'T do this. Try it.

[antonsemrad]

Originally posted by boxfishpooalot



The main thing with the fish populations is they are declining and not increasing like they should be with increasing carbon dioxide levels. Algae are quick to respond to the increased Co2 in the air, growing at faster rates. But where are the fish to eat it?

Thankyou 4 that explanation. I agree that it is a part of the problem. Food for thought.

It is also possible that carbon isn't the limiting nutrient for marine algae.?

[HippieSmell]

Carbon isn't usually the limiting factor, it's nitrogen and phosphorous, both of which are increasing in the ocean due to agriculture and removal of coastal wetlands. That's also a reason why we're getting dead zones, algae blooms caused by excess nutrients decay and use up all of the oxygen in the process, suffocating many organisms.

[sherm71tank]

I'm blaming, natural cycles, over fishing, forest fires and volcanic eruptions as the cause of global warming because I don't want to feel guilty about driving my modified 5.9 liter that gets 11 mpg when I could drive the car that gets 30 mpg.

[sayn3ver]

Originally posted by sherm71tank
I'm blaming, natural cycles, over fishing, forest fires and volcanic eruptions as the cause of global warming because I don't want to feel guilty about driving my modified 5.9 liter that gets 11 mpg when I could drive the car that gets 30 mpg.

in the bigger scheme of things, whats a few mpg here and there? Both are still burning a carbon based fuel, just one is doing so at a faster rate. I still don't see how driving a fuel efficent car is "going green" since if given the time, the "green" car is going to burn the same amount a less "efficent" car would in a shorter time. The only logical reason to do so is to save yourself money, and this only really occurs if your current car dies(auto accident, major engine failure) and you are forced into the market to buy a new car anyways(so you might as well be able to drive the same distance for less $$$). And since fossil fuels are a limited(finite) resource, does it really matter how quickly we burn them if eventually all of them will be burnt(following the current trend of man's dependence on them)

Its looking at the situation at the mpg level that is really getting us no where. ideally a renewable energy would be the best way to go, reguardless if the energy is carbon based or not, as it should in theory intake and output the same amount of carbon, since matter cannot be created nor destroyed. The only problem is that nothing is really 100% efficent...

[Rhodesholar]

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

It was an oversite. I knew some one would throw this out there and you are 100% correct and I should have metioned the other side of the debate.

[Rhodesholar]

I really can't believe we are debating this topic and I will describe why. All of us of keepers of closed systems know how difficult it is to keep the balance, and the tank healthy. What happens when one of our parameters go out balance? We have problems. How can anyone not look at what is happening on a GLOBAL scale and not think it has some impact on the health of our planet? As I stated we should know this better then anyone. Look how delicated our boxes of water are and how complicated it is to keep them. Let's face it. The planet was never designed to have millions of cars, a population in the billions, thousands of factorys etc. Basically look at it like this. Your tank, start adding a small cap of laundry detergent to it. Or stop using your RO. These should have no effect since it is believed by some that man and the pollutants he creates has no effect on planet.