Arctic Ocean Acidifying Rapidly.

[TimG]

Well the fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico are coming back with near empty holds 3 years after the disaster.

The plural of anecdote is not data. There could be many reasons for the decline (e.g. there is a huge deadzone in the gulf cause by agricultural runnoff - not the oil spill) or they could be exaggerating the decline to garner sympathy and compensation.

[eyeball]

Excuse me? aquatic acidification? total BS.

You couldn't tell a natural ecosystem or the differences between them from a hole in the ground even if you fell face first into one would you? That's the power of a belief system that has you.

Aquatic acidification

CONT – In USA, lakes in the Adirondack Mountains represent the most well-known example of water acidification (Schofield, 1976). The precipitation has a pH of 4.1 - 4.3. 51% of 217 mountain lakes have a pH below 5.0; 90% of these have lost their fish stocks. During the period 1929-1937, only about 4% of the lakes were reported to have pH below 5.0.

Source

The other points you mention are plausible factors but your willingness to throw in meaningless buzz words completely undermines your argument.

You mean like natural capital? Have you even tried to educate yourself as to what that term means? There are ton's of scholarly papers that describe it.

I was listening to CBC yesterday and they talked about the decline of fishing communities.

They listed two factors: mechanization means fewer hours are available for fishing which means fewer people can make their living from it. The second surprised me: the price of a salmon is 1/2 what it was 20-30 years ago! That is hardly a sign of scarcity and environmental destruction.

Salmon trollers addressed mechanization by reducing the number of lines they could use. As far as I know we are the only salmon fishing sector that ever addressed mechanization so directly.

The wild salmon I occasionally fish for is often several times the price it was 20 - 30 years ago. The price of salmon you're talking about is for farmed salmon, but here's the rub, the environmental costs of farmed salmon are not accounted for so who really knows what the price of salmon is.

I'd point out DFO's suppression of scientific inquiries into the impact that salmon farming has on natural ecosystems but that would probably be irreligious and contemptuous of your own belief system.

[GostHacked]

TimG, on 08 May 2013 - 12:37, said:

The plural of anecdote is not data. There could be many reasons for the decline (e.g. there is a huge deadzone in the gulf cause by agricultural runnoff - not the oil spill) or they could be exaggerating the decline to garner sympathy and compensation.

The fishermen are simply not coming back with the hauls they used to before the Deepwater Horizon incident. That's not anecdotal, that's hard data. Or would you like a government initiative (that will be over budget and will be made to hide the true data) to study the effects on the oil spill and corexit dump?

[TimG]

You couldn't tell a natural ecosystem

Sorry - you have provided absolutely NO evidence that "aquatic acidification" has anything to do with coastal fishery which is the basis for my jab.

The price of salmon you're talking about is for farmed salmon, but here's the rub, the environmental costs of farmed salmon are not accounted for so who really knows what the price of salmon is.

"environmental costs" is another buzz word used to slam any development which runs afoul of the eco-religion. Edited May 8, 2013 by TimG

[TimG]

The fishermen are simply not coming back with the hauls they used to before the Deepwater Horizon incident.

That statement is an anecdote. Even if it was quantified there is no demonstration of a causal relationship. There are many things that can cause a decline in a fishery.

[Wilber]

This might surprise you TimG, but humans are not the center of the universe, nor are we the center of life on Earth. It is no surprise with your disrespect for other species and nature, that your politics and environmental attitudes would be similar.

Quite true, we humans depend on many other species for our survival. Falling numbers of species like bats and bees can have a huge impact on harmful insect populations and the production of food. Remove one piece from the chain and the impact can be devastating.

[Moonlight Graham]

The only question we should care about is if there are problems that undermine our ability to support the humans on the planet.

So screw the environment unless it harms humans? Sounds like a selfish and ignorant statement for which you can't possibly predict the outcomes, now or 100 years from now.

So? Species go extinct and other rise to fill the void - that is the way of life and humans are part of it.

Your logic is that species go extinct through natural processes, and therefore since humans are a part of nature we should feel no qualms when destroying species??? What the heck kind of ignorant cowboy-wannabe thinking is this? Humans are a radically unique species in that we have massive power to affect our environment and the unique consciousness of this fact so that we can shape our environment in ways we want or don't want. With great power comes great responsibility...to not eff it all up. Your kind of thinking scares the balls right off me.

[TimG]

So screw the environment unless it harms humans? Sounds like a selfish and ignorant statement for which you can't possibly predict the outcomes, now or 100 years from now.

What rational basis to have for saying that every species in existence today should continue to exist when we know that species going extinct is the natural order? What gives you the right to play god and decide that a species should continue simply because they happen to exist today? Do you ever stop to think of the damage that could be caused by keeping a species alive that should have died off?

Humans are a radically unique species in that we have massive power to affect our environment and the unique consciousness of this fact so that we can shape our environment in ways we want or don't want. With great power comes great responsibility...to not eff it all up.

The original ecosystems for ~50% of the land area on earth have already been destroyed by humans creating cities and farms. Do you feel guilt about this? Do you think humans should simply kill themselves to avoid impacting nature? That is basically what you are arguing. I simply look at reality and don't waste time with the hypocritical platitudes that you spout because I know that every human on this planet will choose personal survival over the survival of another species. You can deny if you like but you are fooling no one but yourself.

We should care about the environment because we have to live in it but that does not mean we should feel guilty about changing it if those changes benefit us.

Edited May 9, 2013 by TimG

[eyeball]

Sorry - you have provided absolutely NO evidence that "aquatic acidification" has anything to do with coastal fishery which is the basis for my jab.

"environmental costs" is another buzz word used to slam any development which runs afoul of the eco-religion.

Excuse me but, you work in fisheries and you don't know the difference between an aquatic and a marine ecosystem?

[Wilber]

What rational basis to have for saying that every species in existence today should continue to exist when we know that species going extinct is the natural order? What gives you the right to play god and decide that a species should continue simply because they happen to exist today? Do you ever stop to think of the damage that could be caused by keeping a species alive that should have died off?

The original ecosystems for ~50% of the land area on earth have already been destroyed by humans creating cities and farms. Do you feel guilt about this? Do you think humans should simply kill themselves to avoid impacting nature? That is basically what you are arguing. I simply look at reality and don't waste time with the hypocritical platitudes that you spout because I know that every human on this planet will choose personal survival over the survival of another species. You can deny if you like but you are fooling no one but yourself.

We should care about the environment because we have to live in it but that does not mean we should feel guilty about changing it if those changes benefit us.

We are part of nature and unfortunately we are often not smart enough to really know the impact we have on it until we go too far. If humans cause a species to go extinct because of our impact on the envireonment, that is not the natural order. We consciously invent things that destroy our environment, other species do not.

[bush_cheney2004]

... We consciously invent things that destroy our environment, other species do not.

Natural processes have caused numerous individual and mass extinction events, far beyond anything that humans ever have/will cause. Extinctions are part of the "natural order".

[TimG]

If humans cause a species to go extinct because of our impact on the environment, that is not the natural order.

Every species changes the environment - some in large ways - some in small. We are part of the natural order. It is unbelievably arrogant to claim that we are separate from nature and there is something inherently wrong when we change it when every other species does exactly the same thing we do (they are just less effective).

For example, cyanobacteria consumed CO2 and created O2 billions of years ago. This likely caused many extinctions but paved the way for new forms of life. Our impact is much less than that of cyanobacteria yet you wish to argue that cyanobacteria is 'part of natural order' and we are not. It makes no sense.

Edited May 10, 2013 by TimG

[GostHacked]

We are part of nature and unfortunately we are often not smart enough to really know the impact we have on it until we go too far. If humans cause a species to go extinct because of our impact on the envireonment, that is not the natural order. We consciously invent things that destroy our environment, other species do not.

Everything is a cycle and we have been able to break some of the cycles in just how we are.

Large sprawling cities, large connecting and interconnecting roadways and other infrastructures. Vehicle traffic, industrial pollution, man made disasters (as an example building a nuclear plant that goes BOOM because of some problem/neglect) ......

Just look at the scale in which we produce food and the amount of GMOs we use in order to have bigger yielding crops. The plastic and other garbage littering the landscape and the oceans.

The damage we do is large scale driven by consumerism and capitalism.

Not to mention the damage caused by over a century of modern warfare and large militaries.

[Bonam]

\

The damage we do is large scale driven by consumerism and capitalism.

Hardly... the "damage" we do is a result of the resources and processes required to support large populations at comfortable living standards. Communist regimes are not more environmentally friendly, except in as much as they slaughter their own populations and have moribund economies.

[GostHacked]

Hardly... the "damage" we do is a result of the resources and processes required to support large populations at comfortable living standards. Communist regimes are not more environmentally friendly, except in as much as they slaughter their own populations and have moribund economies.

That all depends on what you gauge as necessary to live comfortably, and what you consider luxury. You and I might not be driven by consumerism, but there are a good majority of the population that does.

[eyeball]

It is unbelievably arrogant to claim that we are separate from nature and there is something inherently wrong when we change it when every other species does exactly the same thing...

It's so unfair. Speaking of separate from nature...you remind me of our know-it-all economist who doesn't even know what natural capital is.

So when you say ocean acidification and coastal fisheries are the basis for your job what do you mean exactly? Are you a marine biologist or do you just cut-bait? Maybe you're a Fisheries Minister.

[TimG]

...

You know it helps if you are responding to someone if your response has some connection to what they said.

Also, if you are responding to a thread on 'oceanic acidification' it is generally a bad idea to start talking about 'aquatic acidification' unless you mean the term to be a synonym for 'oceanic acidification'.

[carepov]

Yawn.

The ocean is getting less alkaline.

It will never get 'acidic' even under the most ridiculous scenarios.

Claims that the ocean is 'acidifying' is pathetic propaganda.

The average pH is declining by about 0.02/decade on scale of 0 to 15.

The seasonal variation in average pH is at least 0.3.

IOW - we are talking about changes which are less than the seasonal variations!

The notion that ocean life is so fragile that such a small change will destroy it is absurd scaremongering.

Life adapts. That is why it exists.

I agree with you that most publications, including National Geographic, are sensationalist however your dismissive response does not seem right either. There are valid concerns of declining pH (remember the scale is logarithmic) and these concerns should be studied. IMO, ocean acidification is a POTENTIAL problem.

On the other hand, there are REAL issues facing the oceans and environment. Two that are mentioned in the OP links are overfishing (especially the type that drags nets across the ocean floor) and agricultural runoff. Tragically some (not all) "environmentalists" are stand stubbornly against two practical responses to these issues – aquaculture and modern agriculture (GMO and other technology to increase yields and reduce runoff).

These well-intentioned “environmentalists” that oppose remedies to the problems that they care so much about or worse yet that advocate “solutions” that would worsen the environment vex me to no end. How can we get society to focus on the REAL problems and move forward? I agree with many of your ideas but think that your dismissive approach is not helping.

[eyeball]

You know it helps if you are responding to someone if your response has some connection to what they said.

I'm sorry, I thought you were capable of following a line or two of thought. You give every impression of thinking you know what you're talking about.

I said, fishing communities are to our economy as canaries are to a coal miner and the canaries are all pretty much dead or dying - mostly due to the inability of the environment to serve coastal economies everywhere around the planet.

Note I said everywhere around the planet. So am I to believe you also think aquatic environments don't have coastlines or communities and yes, even fisheries?

Also, if you are responding to a thread on 'oceanic acidification' it is generally a bad idea to start talking about 'aquatic acidification' unless you mean the term to be a synonym for 'oceanic acidification'.

I was including within this thread examples of things happening to environments that impact their ability to provide economic benefits to people, such as those who rely on fishing. Aquatic acidification is not marine acidification but acidification is occurring all around the planet like the death of fishing communities.

Also, if you are responding to a thread on ocean acidification that includes a discussion around coastal communities and fisheries and you identify yourself as someone whose job is based on these, it's generally a good idea to know what you're talking about. I don't see any evidence that you have the first clue about what you're talking about because you're unable to differentiate between ecosystem types. That probably helps explain why the term natural capital confuses you.

Anyway as it seems you're now backing away from the implication that you're some sort of professional expert on coastal fisheries it's probably safe to assume acidification isn't your forte either. I'm still pretty curious about what your job is though and how it relates to any of the topics this thread encompasses. You're obviously not a fisherman or a scientist, deputy fisheries minister maybe?

Edited May 10, 2013 by eyeball

[TimG]

IMO, ocean acidification is a POTENTIAL problem.

So are the problems created by a massive solar flare or a dinosaur killing meteor.

Two that are mentioned in the OP links are overfishing (especially the type that drags nets across the ocean floor) and agricultural runoff.

Both problems I acknowledged as issues in this thread and suggested they would be a better focus for our efforts.

I agree with many of your ideas but think that your dismissive approach is not helping.

I fight fire with fire. This is a discussion forum - not a policy think tank. No one will do anything based on what is said here. I am more interested in the narrative - i.e. environmentalists have succeeded is making many people accept the tenets of their religion as facts (i.e. the premise that any change to the environment caused by humans is inherently wrong). I don't think this delusion can be changed with nuanced words.

[TimG]

]Anyway as it seems you're now backing away from the implication that you're some sort of professional expert on coastal fisheries

Backing away? This is a bizarro claim on your part that leads me to believe you must be talking to someone else (or smoking drugs).

The only claim of expertise I have ever made is that I am individual trained in science who can read and understand original research papers when they are available.

Edited May 10, 2013 by TimG

[eyeball]

Backing away? This is a bizarro claim on your part that leads me to believe you must be talking to someone else (or smoking drugs).

The only claim of expertise I have ever made is that I am individual trained in science who can read and understand original research papers when they are available.

You said it was your "jab"

Sorry - you have provided absolutely NO evidence that "aquatic acidification" has anything to do with coastal fishery which is the basis for my jab.

"environmental costs" is another buzz word used to slam any development which runs afoul of the eco-religion.

You don't even know what an environment is. You're so out to lunch you must be on acid.

[carepov]

So are the problems created by a massive solar flare or a dinosaur killing meteor.

Again, you are being dismissive and I will add illogical. Unlike your examples, ocean acidification is a potential problem that is very likely caused by human activity that we can potentially act on. We should at least study it.

Both problems I acknowledged as issues in this thread and suggested they would be a better focus for our efforts.

As I said, we agree on many points.

I fight fire with fire. This is a discussion forum - not a policy think tank. No one will do anything based on what is said here. I am more interested in the narrative - i.e. environmentalists have succeeded is making many people accept the tenets of their religion as facts (i.e. the premise that any change to the environment caused by humans is inherently wrong). I don't think this delusion can be changed with nuanced words.

Au contraire, "environmental delusions" can only be changed by logical arguments. IMO, your posts only help to re-enforce "environmental delusions". When persuading people to support sensible ideas and policies that we likely agree on (eg: humans are a part of nature, GMOs, aquaculture, responsible forestry, nuclear energy, less obsession with global warming...) your posts, despite your good intentions, are making the problem of ongoing "environmental delusions" worse.

[TimG]

You said it was your "jab"

You do know that "jab" and "job" are different words?

[TimG]

Again, you are being dismissive and I will add illogical. Unlike your examples, ocean acidification is a potential problem that is very likely caused by human activity that we can potentially act on. We should at least study it.

Fair enough - I am reacting to the hype.

your posts, despite your good intentions, are making the problem of ongoing "environmental delusions" worse.

Perhaps. Part of the issue is I have tried to be persuasive and carefully logical yet after investing hours in long posts discussing the issue with superficially reasonable people I find that they refuse to accept logical arguments that violate their religious preconceptions. Now I just don't want to put in the effort required. Edited May 10, 2013 by TimG