Chasing coral
- Thread starter Reef man 89
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Best Fish-Jake
Valuable Member
Maacc disagreed with you when you said that environmentalism is a responsibility rather than a luxury making your initial comment inaccurate.
This discussion has turned to one of morale, a discussion that rarely holds a purpose. You feel that you have an obligation to the environment whereas I feel that I don't have as much of an obligation.
You think it's a responsibility (with exceptions). I think it's a luxury. That's all.
Maac disagreed with the degree of responsibilty, not with it entirely. He can weigh in more if that isn't what he meant.
I will agree to disagree with you, and continue to feel sorry for those who espouse opinions such as those you have... We are more connected that you think, living a life in which you feel no responsibility to others just makes me sad, since that means you will undoubtedly miss many opportunities to be appreciated.
Best Fish-Jake
Valuable Member
Don't feel sorry, I am in no way misfortuned. Perhaps I'd adopt a view more similar to yours if there was an actual solution proposed to solve the global warming issue. (One that doesn't involve killing millions of people or plunging everyone back into living standards of the 1800's).
Lol. Reasonable standards have already been set to avoid the worst of what could happen in the foreseeable future. An unwillingness to acknowledge them, or even know that they exist doesn't mean they haven't been established. No one needs to go back to the 1800's, we just need to stop living in the 1980s.
neuwave
Active Member
I'm sorry if I am miss reading your statement but you would only adopt a view of global warming is man made if there was already one solution for it?
Also, I am curious, how would millions of people perish or brought back to the 1800s? (I'm guessing the 1800s is just an exaggeration since that would be horse and buggy and candles/ oil lamp era.)
Best Fish-Jake
Valuable Member
Standards are in place to stop global warming? I don't see how a law limiting carbon emissions in select countries does anything more than delay 'the worst of what could happen'. Please also clarify what 'the worst' is.
Although you suggest it, I am far from unwilling to aknoweledge a viable solution to any problem.
And I prefer to live in 2017[emoji6]
I just finished watching it, and this sums up the way I feel.
I'm an enthusiast amateur photographer and a consumer amateur videographer, who SCUBA dives and snorkels plenty when I get a chance. I had no interest in the "how they were filming" bit, and it seemed to me that they were filling time. I also didn't like that they chose to focus on the rising sea temperature problem, excluding other problems for corals.
- there is no such a thing as "*the* reef" anywhere. "Reefs" can be made of coral skelton based rock, lava rock, or a host of different rocks. And most of the "reefs" worldwide do not have corals on them; they are mostly "live" rock (and often of bad quality) as we understand it. Equating hard coral reefs with "the reef" is a red flag in my book, and smacks of advocacy.
- pollution of the water from development, sewage, trash, and a number of things can be just as deadly as anything else to corals
- tThe existence of NPS corals is completely ignored beyond a video clip of an NPS gorgonian towards the beginning. Which is a bit disingenuous both scientifically. And for advocacy - the books say that Hawaii has no black (NPS) corals at SCUBA depths anymore because it was all harvested for jewelry (and it will take decades to come back). Or you have the alleged incident where a large group of (very) deep water black corals were found somewhere in the Pacific, and a set of trawlers came and took them all for jewelry.
- the documentary completely ignores anything but small section of photosynthetic corals above the highest thermoclines. Below the 60ft or so in most fringing-type coral reefs, the temperature is generally more constant and I believe the level of die off in photosynthetic from rising temperatures is much less for the rest of the euphotic zone.
ALL THAT SAID, AFAIC bleaching and die off from warmer waters is IMO real. I was in Hawaii a few weeks ago, snorkeling around after work in order to put together my R2R article*. Kapoho tide pools had lots of clear water and large impressive (brown) Montipora colonies. Most of them were 25-50% bleached when I was there, except the ones located in (~5ft) deeper, more shaded areas with better flow. The water was very warm, and given that pollutants would affect everything in a large tide pool equally, it's hard to not conclude that warming temperatures have some role in this.
Finally, yes the coral reefs will recover. Once temperatures go down, larvae of the original species will hopefully land back in the same place. Or perhaps hardier species of coral**. In the longer run, new corals will evolve. But,
* In just about every place in easy snorkeling depth with a coral (Montipora or Porites usually) formation, usually at least half of it was clearly dead. You can fairly attribute a good amount of it to different things like pollution (or too many beach-goers and snorkelers
) - one area I snorkeled (but probably shouldn't have ) seemed to have a lot of run off, algae and protozoa in the water. ** in areas with lots of coral die-off, there were some newish looking Lobed Porites colonies, which I think/hope are more durable (and certainly very common) corals exploiting vacant space. This Porites, however, is rather dull and though it's one of the most common corals in the world I'm told its very hard to find in the aquarium hobby.
The science is available to anyone who cares to look. 'Putting a face' on the science is the larger goal of the film. If they just present numbers, no one watches. It turns into 11th grade bio class.
nps corals are not reefbuilders, and generally rely on reef builders for their subsistence.
The extent of recovery is tied to the length of the sustained temperature/stress. Reefs _should_ recover, if not held in threat for long enough that die off effects too many reefs and too many species. That is the point. The film isn't doom and gloom, it's a warning. If things continue at this pace, we come closer and closer to a tipping point from which recovery on any large scale is drastically threatened, and species, reef building species, may be lost lost for good
nps corals are not reefbuilders, and generally rely on reef builders for their subsistence.
The extent of recovery is tied to the length of the sustained temperature/stress. Reefs _should_ recover, if not held in threat for long enough that die off effects too many reefs and too many species. That is the point. The film isn't doom and gloom, it's a warning. If things continue at this pace, we come closer and closer to a tipping point from which recovery on any large scale is drastically threatened, and species, reef building species, may be lost lost for good
Ashish Patel
2500 Club Member
Chasing coral was devastating for me to watch.. Overpopulation and polution has contributing to global warming and coral bleaching. Look at Florida they totally destroyed the staghorn population. The government could have had more alternative energy source but since they are taking kick-backs from the energy companies they turn the other way.. Unfortunately humans will take notice now and try to save coral now and mark them as their saviors.
Best Fish-Jake
Valuable Member
My view on environmentalism is that it is a luxury of the rich. I would only adopt a view more similar to one of spieszak's if there was a viable solution to the issue of man accelerated global warming. (I advise reading back through the discussion between myself and spieszak)
The only solutions to global warming currently include A.) killing as many people as possible B.) forcing people back to living standards of the 1800s to drastically reduce carbon emissions.
So no, what I said was not an exaggeration.
Best Fish-Jake
Valuable Member
Is this in response to my post #168? What 'the science' are you talking about?
neuwave
Active Member
I don't see how it can be a luxury for the rich. But that wasn't something of concern. There are plenty of green alternatives out there so there would be no need to go back to 1800s or kill anyone. Last I checked Sweden is the closet to being nearly fossil fuel free. And they haven't been brought back to the Stone Age or have any mass killings to do so.
Why should the USA fall behind on developing new technology for renewable energy that is better, stronger and outlast anyone else?
We have the ingenuity and determination to do so. We Americans role up our sleeves and work harder, longer and don't settle for less. I know we can beat everyone to finish line. Maybe I act old school but I believe we can develop better tech cause we are made of p__ and vinegar and don't stop till the jobs done.
Best Fish-Jake
Valuable Member
only when you have the wealth and prosperity to lift yourself beyond bare survival do you have the luxury of having the time and resources to focus on anything beyond subsistence (quote from earlier in the thread)
If environmentalism is not a luxury, then what is it in your opinion? Again I highly suggest you go back a page or tworead through the thread
neuwave
Active Member
I read the thread, you know I've been bouncing in and out of it. You went back and forth with spieszak about raising young, etc. Then had a one liner about environmentalism is a luxury and then later the death and 1800s remark.
But it dosent explain the hundreds of deaths you mentioned or mention of how our modern living lifestyles will be reduced to that of 1800s where technology and electricity are non existent. Considering that is a fairly large and scary scenario if we go with renewable energy. In that case I'm am simply trying to learn how such an event could take place since you mentioned it.
Then I replied with anther country who didn't reduce their technological lifestyle and no mass deaths. Along with me asking how they can do it but we can't?
Best Fish-Jake
Valuable Member
Frankly, Sweden isn't the United States. From my limited knowledge of Sweden and its affairs i can tell you that it is a very wealthy country that generates a very large portion of its revenue from exports. I would like it to be known that I never said that the US couldn't go with renewable energy, in fact I previously stated that nine decent sized nuclear power plants would be enough to power the entire country excluding vehicles.
The reason why I say that we'd get plunged back into living standards of the 1800's or millions would have to be killed is because the only solutions proposed that would effectively drive down carbon emissions enough to matter are those that essentially cut out the use of fossil fuels, and those that limit the human population.
These are obviously extremes as we live in a country where killing millions of people for the "greater good" isn't gonna fly, and stopping the usage of fossil fuels is currently impossible.
Stopping the usage of fossil fuels in the US will only be possible by the discovery and development of an alternative fuel source that is as efficient as oil.
Ashish Patel
2500 Club Member
over population is a hugh problem -especially in the past 100 Years. More land needed, more trees cutt down, less habitat for wildlife.. Losing valuable ecosystems and wildlife aswell as burning excessive fossil fuel is the result of this phenomenom. Unfortunately, politicians don't get it and sometimes you can't blame them when big oil companies are funding their campaigns.. I've always known how important reefs where but to the extend this documentary explained it gives me even more appreciation for the coral reefs and how skrewed earth will be if they become extinct.
Mark Gray
2500 Club Member
I have not seen this yet, but I have been diving in The Philippine in October Thailand end of October and Fiji just 3 days ago. What I saw is the reefs look very heathy and good. I just telling what I have seen. In the Philippines and Fiji I was with dive crews and did not go out a lot but the reefs looked good. In Thailand I went out a lot, and went to many sites.
neuwave
Active Member
I had to separate your statement into two parts. Above you give an answer/solution on how to make viable energy without mass killing and reducing our way of modern living using nuclear power as a energy source.
Then below you say it's inevitable that mass killings have to happen and quality of life must be taken away.
So which is it? Cause you have a solution and then said there's now way to solve the problem when you gave a solution above.
On a side note: As for Sweden one of their biggest exports is renewable energy. So if you consider them wealthy, I'd say why could we not out compete them at renewable( they export hydro power) and make it one of our best sources of income, lead the way?
