Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ocean acidification: the other carbon problem
- Thread starter Aught3
- Start date
Without getting too far into the video, there's two things that instantly come to mind...
CO2 has been much higher in the atmosphere before...
During that time, there was all manner of life, acidity or no...
Sharks which are more or less the TOP of the food chain in the ocean have been around without really changing a lot since at least the dinosaurs and maybe more and if top predators like sharks can adapt to different ocean acidity I don't think the bio diversity of the ocean is in any particular danger... From anything. Individual species may not be so lucky of course, but the idea that rising CO2 could wipe out life in the ocean is patently ridiculous.
Nothing is going to wipe out life in the ocean. The world could freeze over tomorrow and there would be vast ecosystems in the deep depths that wouldn't even take notice. We'd need to mess up the atmosphere so badly that we turn the planet into a Venusian sauna before the oceans needed to start worrying about us and none of the most far out there predictions forecast anything like that happening.
(And now having seen to the end)
So on the other hand, I see nothing wrong with the things the video is advocating doing. If you want to talk about an industry that needs to die a horrible death with the greatest of alacrity, it's the fishing industry. Seriously governments, put some regulations in place to make fish farms more feasible and build places that are totally separated from the ocean so that farmers can breed fish the same way we breed other domesticated animals. It's better for the wild fish populations and it's better for us too. No more going out onto the dangerous ocean in big diesel burning nature raping boats, just reach into the breeding ponds and scoop the things out, decapitate them and serve em for dinner.
Hell, go one step further and just build them in giant underground aquariums.
As for nature reserves, yeah, good idea. Charge tourists to visit them too just like the ones on land. Capital idea.
CO2 has been much higher in the atmosphere before...
During that time, there was all manner of life, acidity or no...
Sharks which are more or less the TOP of the food chain in the ocean have been around without really changing a lot since at least the dinosaurs and maybe more and if top predators like sharks can adapt to different ocean acidity I don't think the bio diversity of the ocean is in any particular danger... From anything. Individual species may not be so lucky of course, but the idea that rising CO2 could wipe out life in the ocean is patently ridiculous.
Nothing is going to wipe out life in the ocean. The world could freeze over tomorrow and there would be vast ecosystems in the deep depths that wouldn't even take notice. We'd need to mess up the atmosphere so badly that we turn the planet into a Venusian sauna before the oceans needed to start worrying about us and none of the most far out there predictions forecast anything like that happening.
(And now having seen to the end)
So on the other hand, I see nothing wrong with the things the video is advocating doing. If you want to talk about an industry that needs to die a horrible death with the greatest of alacrity, it's the fishing industry. Seriously governments, put some regulations in place to make fish farms more feasible and build places that are totally separated from the ocean so that farmers can breed fish the same way we breed other domesticated animals. It's better for the wild fish populations and it's better for us too. No more going out onto the dangerous ocean in big diesel burning nature raping boats, just reach into the breeding ponds and scoop the things out, decapitate them and serve em for dinner.
Hell, go one step further and just build them in giant underground aquariums.
As for nature reserves, yeah, good idea. Charge tourists to visit them too just like the ones on land. Capital idea.
darthrender2010
New Member
Niocan said:Odd, this is based off the hockey stick lie... Can I ask what's scientific about manipulating data to support lies?
only if I can ask what's intelligent about spewing hot air out of your ass?
darthrender2010 said:only if I can ask what's intelligent about spewing hot air out of your ass?
Niocan said:Continue on with whatever BS this thread will produce.
Both these comments are unnecessary please remain civil and address the argument rather than the person.
Aught3 said:I'm not clear on your response. After actually watching the video, do you now understand why a relatively rapid increase in acidification is more problematic for ocean life than absolute pH level, even if it has been higher in the past?
Well, I don't think they give life enough credit for it's malleability. They seem to give this picture of the ocean as being this incredibly fragile system balanced on the knife edge of a catastrophe curve. This is not the case. Shell fish had no trouble making their shells in more acidic oceans previously and I don't think they will if the acid levels jump suddenly. Specific species, yes, they would probably be decimated, but the wonderful thing about nature, red in tooth and claw, is that there's always something ready to step in to fill the niche. Life makes it's own arrangements and not even radiation and industrial waste is enough to kill off everything. Hell, insects LOVE radiation, it kills off all their predators so they can thrive and become huge. I have no doubt that something similar would happen in the ocean.
Like I said, if sharks have remained the top of the food chain and relatively unchanged for hundreds of millions of years (Not unchanged of course, just their basic design. I know shark DNA has evolved A LOT since then) then I don't think they're giving the ocean enough credit for it's toughness but they also overstate this perceived sense of stability. The world is not stable, it gets hit with meteors, it gets hit with earthquakes and hurricanes and volcanoes in varying degrees of frequency and it generally has the temperament of a menopausal woman, never being able to decide between too hot, too cold or sometimes being just plain nasty and vindictive.
However, the video does have some ideas that would be good to adopt anyway, not because the ocean is a valuable resource that has to be protected, but because we have very little control over the ocean and to rely on it in the long run is foolish. It's also has many beautiful places, a natural beauty is worth preserving just because we'd be poorer for the loss. To let coral reef ecosystems die needlessly would be like letting any of the great classical paintings be burned for fuel, especially if the solution is as simple as setting up wildlife protected areas which can be maintained by tourist revenue that they bring in.
And as I stated previously, the fishing industry needs to get out of the bronze age. Fish farms baby, fish farms. Wave of the bloody future.
But didn't you hear the scientists in the video explaining that the kind of shells these organisms are making will dissolve if the water gets too acidic? As they said pockets of water have already been found with high enough acidity to melt shells. Reef systems are already collapsing with a couple of invasive species taking over the new habitat. I agree that eventually the few remaining coral species will be able to adapt and then evolve to produce new species and eventually rebuild what was destroyed but these processes occur on the million-year time scale. Sharks aren't going to survive for that long if there is nothing to eat.Unwardil said:Well, I don't think they give life enough credit for it's malleability. They seem to give this picture of the ocean as being this incredibly fragile system balanced on the knife edge of a catastrophe curve. This is not the case. Shell fish had no trouble making their shells in more acidic oceans previously and I don't think they will if the acid levels jump suddenly.
See, that's where I think alarmists are wrong.
First of all, Evolution isn't that slow, the simple reason being that it isn't a multi tiered edifice made entirely of supporting columns and if you remove one, the whole thing comes tumbling down, it's a writhing sea (metaphorically speaking... and literally in this case) of competing factions all vying for supremacy. That's why evolution appears to go very slowly when it's reached a state perceived equilibrium because there's just so many factions that nothing get make any headway. But the thing about the ocean is that everything eats everything else. Even the photosynthetic plankton make use of the remains of dead fish.
Just an example of very rapid evolution... Does anyone remember when lady bugs used to be red? Like vivid red? Tell me what color they are now for comparison and that's easily within living memory.
First of all, Evolution isn't that slow, the simple reason being that it isn't a multi tiered edifice made entirely of supporting columns and if you remove one, the whole thing comes tumbling down, it's a writhing sea (metaphorically speaking... and literally in this case) of competing factions all vying for supremacy. That's why evolution appears to go very slowly when it's reached a state perceived equilibrium because there's just so many factions that nothing get make any headway. But the thing about the ocean is that everything eats everything else. Even the photosynthetic plankton make use of the remains of dead fish.
Just an example of very rapid evolution... Does anyone remember when lady bugs used to be red? Like vivid red? Tell me what color they are now for comparison and that's easily within living memory.
I've seen all sorts of colours, it depends on the species (some are still red btw).Unwardil said:Just an example of very rapid evolution... Does anyone remember when lady bugs used to be red? Like vivid red? Tell me what color they are now for comparison and that's easily within living memory.
The food web is a web but there are some species that very important to a properly function community, these are called keystone species. One example would be the coral in the coral reef, when they disappear the whole ecosystem collapses (the terapods mentioned in the video also sound like they are an important species). However, with ocean acidity it's not just one species that is directly threatened but all species who make hard outer-shells that could face extinction. There aren't many laws in biology but the principle of competitive exclusion tells us that if there are two species which try to occupy the exact same niche one of them will go extinct. This means nature is not a bunch of competing factions vying for supremacy, at least not for very long. What in fact ends up being produced is an inter-related web of organisms some of which could be lost without much damage to the ecosystem and some of which are vital. Loose the keystone specie(s) and it will take hundreds of thousands of years to rebuild anything like what was lost.
That's a view of life and evolution that I've always found incongruous with evidence.
Life is change.
To be alive is to change your surroundings and to be changed by them. Life thrives off change. Most of the organisms living on the planet make their habitat inside other organisms. I almost guarantee that what's bad for one kind of organism is good for another. It's not a matter of balance, that balance is an illusion. Shell fish make their shells with the materials they use right now because they can. I also almost guarantee that as soon as the shell fish start to die off, we'll see a rise in the population of shellfish that use something else to build their shells.
The reefs are a different matter of course and they really are fragile, the same way that any island ecosystem that evolves in near perfect isolation is fragile. However any threats to extinction, however tragic, are also isolated and don't pose a significant threat to the survival of life in the oceans as a whole. I'm not saying it isn't tragic, but it would be a hard sell to a peasant in a land locked middle eastern country to tell them not to drive their car anymore because it's killing the pretty fishes halfway around the world. He's as likely to just give you the Iranian equivalent of the two fingered salute as anything else.
Life is change.
To be alive is to change your surroundings and to be changed by them. Life thrives off change. Most of the organisms living on the planet make their habitat inside other organisms. I almost guarantee that what's bad for one kind of organism is good for another. It's not a matter of balance, that balance is an illusion. Shell fish make their shells with the materials they use right now because they can. I also almost guarantee that as soon as the shell fish start to die off, we'll see a rise in the population of shellfish that use something else to build their shells.
The reefs are a different matter of course and they really are fragile, the same way that any island ecosystem that evolves in near perfect isolation is fragile. However any threats to extinction, however tragic, are also isolated and don't pose a significant threat to the survival of life in the oceans as a whole. I'm not saying it isn't tragic, but it would be a hard sell to a peasant in a land locked middle eastern country to tell them not to drive their car anymore because it's killing the pretty fishes halfway around the world. He's as likely to just give you the Iranian equivalent of the two fingered salute as anything else.