interesting coral reef article

[WangoTANGo]

i was reading through this month's popular science magazing, and there was an interesting article on how the earth has changed from human action, and what the future looks like. there was a page devoted to the wild coral reefs and i thought i might give an exerpt;

0.2% of the ocean floor is covered in live reefs, but the reefs are home to more than 1-million species (25%), including over 4,000 types of fish.

58% of the world's coral reefs are located within 50 kilometers of major urban centers.

sponges from the caribbean are used in HIV and cancer medications, icluding Ara-A, Ara-C, and AZT.

reefs generate $30 billion in revenue each year. with their current rate of decline, the caribbean alone will loose about $350 million annually.

1/3 of all reef fish are labeled endangered, and some reefs have fish fewer than 10cm long due to overfishing.

15,000 dives are performed annually on the reefs around the cayman islands. the reef can only support about 5,000 without damage to the corals.

of the approximate 284,803 square kilometers of coral reef on earth, 20% is dead, 30% is under no immediate threat, 26% is under long-term threat, and 24% is under immediate threat. damage to the reefs is caused by; 12% marine pollution (boats), 36% by tourism and overfishing (includes use of nets, rocks, dynamite, cyanide, and people). 22% is caused by inland pollution, and 30% is caused by coastal developement.

after a mass bleaching event in 1998 caused by El Nino which killed about 16% of the world's reefs, nearly half of that which was lost has regrown thanks to protected areas and fish and coral harvesting restrictions.

i just thought this was an interesting article to share with people who care about reefs. again, i paraphrazed it from an article in the latest popular science.

-Justin

[polwick]

Very interesting. Glad to know some some actual numbers and the scope of things.

[chesapeake]

I still do not believe its totally do to humans the earth has done this before .but 200 million people cannot be helping matters though.so we all must respect our suroundings and become an ally of the evironment instead of a foe.

[bahhareef]

You misused do .

The humans are totally responsible for the start of global warming. Take at the Earth's temperature over time. Around 1850 (Industrial Revolution) the Earth's temperature begins to rise steadily and has only increased since then.

[Rossini]

Originally posted by chesapeake
I still do not believe its totally do to humans the earth has done this before .but 200 million people cannot be helping matters though.so we all must respect our suroundings and become an ally of the evironment instead of a foe.

Wrong.

The earths temperature has never gone up as fast as it has done in the last 200 years,since the industrial revolution.


There is one thing that dictates temperature and thats atmospheric co2 levels. Which are 35% higher than they have ever been. You dont seriously beleive thats a coincidence do you?

[WangoTANGo]

well i thought the article was interesting, but i guess we can talk about global warming and whose fault it is too

-Justin

[0 Agios]

Originally posted by bahhareef
You misused do .

The humans are totally responsible for the start of global warming. Take at the Earth's temperature over time. Around 1850 (Industrial Revolution) the Earth's temperature begins to rise steadily and has only increased since then.

Give up the SUV and drive a smaller car, but its always "people" never "me"

[pepeinthenavy]

You know there was this survey that I took earlier this week that was about global warming and how we do not contribute as much as many people think. I don't know how much of it to believe but it is very fact based. I'll try to find it so i can post it for all

[pepeinthenavy]

Got it. Good Luck and Be honest Post your score and Opinion
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Gl...est/start.html

[greenbean36191]

Yes, most of it is fact based. No it's not interested in giving a complete or accurate picture of the science.

The answer choices are carefully worded to bait people into wrong answers so the author can convince people that what they know is wrong. For example one question asks which is a false statement about global warming. The first choice is "the consensus of scientists is that the problem warrants drastic action." It's carefully worded so that it is a false statement, but so that they can still bait you into picking one of the other answers and then spout their propaganda about a consensus. There is a consensus that global warming is happening and man plays a role. There isn't a consensus that something drastic needs to be done about it. That's a policy decision though, and not the realm of science.

There are also statements like "The world's natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined." Obviously, it's intended to imply that man's impact is too small to make a difference.

And then there are questions like, "Carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises a significant percentage of Earth's atmosphere today." Well, the author determines the concentration is insignificant because it's only a small fraction of the atmospheric composition. I would say it is a significant percentage because it has a forcing effect on the climate regardless of how minor a constituent it is.

If you look at the "sources" it cites, many are from the Cato Institute, which is a conservative think tank that received funding from oil and tobacco companies. Not surprisingly, they've also written a number of articles downplaying the health risks of smoking.

It also cites a petition signed by 17,000 scientists stating that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." It turns out though that most of those scientists don't work with the climate, that they only agreed that there is no evidence that we are creating a catastrophic heating, and that the cover letter was intentionally designed to mislead signees into thinking it was from a peer reviewed journal.

[Rossini]

Originally posted by greenbean36191
Yes, most of it is fact based. No it's not interested in giving a complete or accurate picture of the science.

The answer choices are carefully worded to bait people into wrong answers so the author can convince people that what they know is wrong. For example one question asks which is a false statement about global warming. The first choice is "the consensus of scientists is that the problem warrants drastic action." It's carefully worded so that it is a false statement, but so that they can still bait you into picking one of the other answers and then spout their propaganda about a consensus. There is a consensus that global warming is happening and man plays a role. There isn't a consensus that something drastic needs to be done about it. That's a policy decision though, and not the realm of science.

There are also statements like "The world's natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined." Obviously, it's intended to imply that man's impact is too small to make a difference.

And then there are questions like, "Carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises a significant percentage of Earth's atmosphere today." Well, the author determines the concentration is insignificant because it's only a small fraction of the atmospheric composition. I would say it is a significant percentage because it has a forcing effect on the climate regardless of how minor a constituent it is.

If you look at the "sources" it cites, many are from the Cato Institute, which is a conservative think tank that received funding from oil and tobacco companies. Not surprisingly, they've also written a number of articles downplaying the health risks of smoking.

It also cites a petition signed by 17,000 scientists stating that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." It turns out though that most of those scientists don't work with the climate, that they only agreed that there is no evidence that we are creating a catastrophic heating, and that the cover letter was intentionally designed to mislead signees into thinking it was from a peer reviewed journal.

Nice one. Thanks for clearing that load of cr*p up.

Why do these people do things like that? Make things out of context to mislead. Over such an important and critical issue like Global warming.

Maybe they work for Bush or Exxon....

[pepeinthenavy]

ALL FOR PROPAGANDA!!!!

[newrossman]

Above all sounds like a discussion between rats on why it's getting so wet!.

YES the boat is sinking lol.

IMO the Earth has been long enough here to look after itself and sooner or later it will replace the problem with a better model.
We can try to work it out and maybe explain all the weird weather but when the ships sinks, thats the end of discussion.

We have about 50-100 years to come up with a solution, to be honest I cant see the west going back to the 1940-50's in lifestyle and the 2/3rd world just stopping there growth. So we can do our little bit and sit back and enjoy....

the Earth will move onto the next passage of it's history. I just hope some corals survive long enough to restart again.

Peace man!

[scottras]

Originally posted by newrossman
Above all sounds like a discussion between rats on why it's getting so wet!.

YES the boat is sinking lol.

IMO the Earth has been long enough here to look after itself and sooner or later it will replace the problem with a better model.
We can try to work it out and maybe explain all the weird weather but when the ships sinks, thats the end of discussion.

We have about 50-100 years to come up with a solution, to be honest I cant see the west going back to the 1940-50's in lifestyle and the 2/3rd world just stopping there growth. So we can do our little bit and sit back and enjoy....

the Earth will move onto the next passage of it's history. I just hope some corals survive long enough to restart again.

Peace man!

Your right regarding the earth. Its just the inhabitants that will have a problem. We have about 10-15 years to come up with a solutions. That solutions does not involve gowing back to the 1940's, it involves gowing into the future.

[mfp1016]

Although I agree we are going through climate changes, I do not feel they are solely due to humans. Wild fluctuations in temperature and climate are latent in earth's history, anyone who tells you otherwise has not done the research. Furthermore, even in the last two thousand years, we have seen wild climate changes. Evidence of this can be found in the settlement of many arctic communities. In other words, why do you think the German tribes migrated to parts of Sweden, Norway, and Finland???? Like I posted in a different thread, I'm sure I do more for the environment in monitoring and developing methods of pollution abatement; than some granola-nut reading a leftist article. Read the facts!

On another note, I'm sooo tired of these coughed up conspiracy theories about how tobacco and oil companies are bribing people to release positive reports about their business. Plainly, not true. People who say those types things don't work in the industry, (I do, hence my superior knowledge of the "facts); and I will tell you that no one I have ever worked with has ever been bribed to release a positive OR negative report regarding the environmental impact of a project we are working on.

Greenbean, you're a college student, enough said....

[mfp1016]

Oops, I forgot to post what my response to the original post, kudos to your findings. Interesting reading, popular science you say? I'm now eagerly awaiting my copy!

[greenbean36191]

The ideas that humans are solely responsible for global warming and that earth's climate is normally stable are a straw men. No one is claiming that.

On another note, I'm sooo tired of these coughed up conspiracy theories about how tobacco and oil companies are bribing people to release positive reports about their business. Plainly, not true. People who say those types things don't work in the industry, (I do, hence my superior knowledge of the "facts); and I will tell you that no one I have ever worked with has ever been bribed to release a positive OR negative report regarding the environmental impact of a project we are working on.

About two years ago the oil companies wanted to build a liquid natural gas terminal off the coast of Alabama, but before it could happen they had to have environmental impact studies done by the state marine lab. What did the oil companies do right before they applied for the permit? They bought the lab a brand new state of the art research vessel, donated several million to the public aquarium there, and then asked the researchers to "take another look" at the study they were about to release about the negative environmental impact of the local gas rigs already there. I know because I was there at the time and I was working under some of the people who were asked to reconsider their results. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. The "creative" studies by the tobacco industry are pretty well documented.

In any event, the Cato Institute that I mentioned as a questionable source of information is a think tank. They work in philosophy and policy, not primary research. They aren't bound by the rules of hard science in determining their position. Who is funding them is extremely important in assessing their bias. Would you assume that a think tank funded by the Sierra Club, PETA, and Greenpeace was neutral on environmental issues? Why would you assume one that was funded by ExxonMobil, GM, and Ford was any more neutral?

The bottom line is that my stance comes from the primary literature and talking to the people who are writing it, rather than think tanks and the mass media.

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by greenbean36191
The ideas that humans are solely responsible for global warming and that earth's climate is normally stable are a straw men. No one is claiming that.


About two years ago the oil companies wanted to build a liquid natural gas terminal off the coast of Alabama, but before it could happen they had to have environmental impact studies done by the state marine lab. What did the oil companies do right before they applied for the permit? They bought the lab a brand new state of the art research vessel, donated several million to the public aquarium there, and then asked the researchers to "take another look" at the study they were about to release about the negative environmental impact of the local gas rigs already there. I know because I was there at the time and I was working under some of the people who were asked to reconsider their results. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. The "creative" studies by the tobacco industry are pretty well documented.

In any event, the Cato Institute that I mentioned as a questionable source of information is a think tank. They work in philosophy and policy, not primary research. They aren't bound by the rules of hard science in determining their position. Who is funding them is extremely important in assessing their bias. Would you assume that a think tank funded by the Sierra Club, PETA, and Greenpeace was neutral on environmental issues? Why would you assume one that was funded by ExxonMobil, GM, and Ford was any more neutral?

The bottom line is that my stance comes from the primary literature and talking to the people who are writing it, rather than think tanks and the mass media.

Can I get an AMEN?! I said, I said, can I get an AMEN?! AMEN! Hallelujah!

[mfp1016]

Actually, funny you mention that LNG terminal, my project. You're just not right about it at all. In fact, I have a copy of that environmental impact amongst my files. I also have the EIR for the Port McArthur LNG terminal in Lousiana. I also have the LNG EIR for Costa Azul Mexico. I was/am the project manager for all of those, as well as a number of others. Unfortunately, I suppose you're not familiar with the various PUC (public utility commisions) that not only mandate, but also fund those reports. Any others are privately funded and done without approval from my company or the PUC advising the project.

I do agree though that Cato does deal mainly with social issues rather than science.

[mfp1016]

I'm willing to agree to disagree, however I would like people to realize that these kinds of bribes and scandals are very much a thing of the past. They just simply don't happen anymore. Back in the 60's, 70's and a bit in the 80's this kind of thing was rampant, however today just non-existant. I've seen people attempt such unethical practices, but also saw them quickly reprimanded....

[Rossini]

Originally posted by greenbean36191
The ideas that humans are solely responsible for global warming and that earth's climate is normally stable are a straw men. No one is claiming that.


About two years ago the oil companies wanted to build a liquid natural gas terminal off the coast of Alabama, but before it could happen they had to have environmental impact studies done by the state marine lab. What did the oil companies do right before they applied for the permit? They bought the lab a brand new state of the art research vessel, donated several million to the public aquarium there, and then asked the researchers to "take another look" at the study they were about to release about the negative environmental impact of the local gas rigs already there. I know because I was there at the time and I was working under some of the people who were asked to reconsider their results. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. The "creative" studies by the tobacco industry are pretty well documented.

In any event, the Cato Institute that I mentioned as a questionable source of information is a think tank. They work in philosophy and policy, not primary research. They aren't bound by the rules of hard science in determining their position. Who is funding them is extremely important in assessing their bias. Would you assume that a think tank funded by the Sierra Club, PETA, and Greenpeace was neutral on environmental issues? Why would you assume one that was funded by ExxonMobil, GM, and Ford was any more neutral?

The bottom line is that my stance comes from the primary literature and talking to the people who are writing it, rather than think tanks and the mass media.

NAILED.

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by mfp1016
Actually, funny you mention that LNG terminal, my project. You're just not right about it at all. In fact, I have a copy of that environmental impact amongst my files.

So, you're saying that what greenbean said isn't true? I'm sure you have the environmental report, but I doubt that attempted bribes are discussed in the final analysis.

Originally posted by mfp1016
Any others are privately funded and done without approval from my company or the PUC advising the project.

Ah, privately funded. By your subsidiary, or parent company?

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by mfp1016
I'm willing to agree to disagree, however I would like people to realize that these kinds of bribes and scandals are very much a thing of the past. They just simply don't happen anymore. Back in the 60's, 70's and a bit in the 80's this kind of thing was rampant, however today just non-existant. I've seen people attempt such unethical practices, but also saw them quickly reprimanded....

I feel much better now. You admit bribes and scandals happened in the past. Then, you say that you've witnessed people attempt to do those things, and I'm supposed to believe those practices are in the past? Doesn't sound very reassuring to me. And, a quick look at our foreign energy policy doesn't instill a whole lot of faith in the morality of our domestic practices.

[mfp1016]

You're assuming a high magnitude. I'm refering to a small number of completely unrelated incidents involving contractors. Not the environment, despite what you'd like to believe.

[mfp1016]

As the person who oversaw the design and construction plant, I'm responsible for ALL aspects of the terminal. My source comes from my 40 hour+ work week. EIRs can be privately funded by any number of sources. Our company including all subsidiaries, and parent companies, do not fund any part of the EIR, the final word comes from the EIR produced by the PUC in charge of the project. Like I said, any privately funded EIRs are for entirely different purposes and are not considered or seen by anyone in our company or the PUC.

Like I said, it happened in the past. It doesn't happen today, not regarding that. All of the issues our company has had has been with contractors asking field operations supervisors to misreport their hours for tax purposes. However, I know that the two instances of those that came up in the last ten years were dealt with severly (I believe jail time for the owner of the contracting business!).

Quit speculating.....