Arctic Ocean Acidifying Rapidly.

[carepov]

Fair enough - I am reacting to the hype.

Perhaps. Part of the issue is I have tried to be persuasive and carefully logical only to find that 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.

Thanks for the response. I sympathize with what you are saying. My message to you regarding reactionary posts and to those advocating reactionary environmental policies is the same: follow the principle "first, do no harm".

[eyeball]

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

Ah, you do know that you stumble a little when you write and that also you seem to expect people to read your mind, something this post captures nicely.

Hopefully you now realize there's a difference between an aquatic and a marine ecosystem, assuming ecosystems even exist in your mind/universe.

[TimG]

Ah, you do know that you stumble a little when you write and that also you seem to expect people to read your mind

You misread my post and you try to blame me? That is rather pathetic.

The post you linked to was simply another example of some smart ass who does not read what was written and chooses to respond to some fantasy he made up.

As I as said: the op was about ocean acidification. If you wanted to introduce 'aquatic acidification' as an unrelated term then you need to provide more explanation if you expect people to follow your context switch.

Edited May 10, 2013 by TimG

[Wilber]

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.

We are part of the natural order but many of the things we do are not. Other species effect the environement only in ways related directly to their physical survival. Only a few use very rudimentary tools and then only in ways that help them feed themselves. They don't build and they don't polute other than with their own bodily waste. Much of human impact has little or nothing to do with the physical survival of the species.

We will likely be the only species in the history of this planet that will knowingly cause its own extinction. It is unbelieveably foolish and selfish to claim that everything we do is just part of the natural order and therefore justifiable.

[TimG]

We are part of the natural order but many of the things we do are not.

Why?

Other species effect the environement only in ways related directly to their physical survival.

We are no different. There are 7 billion people on the planet. They can only exist because of the complex economy we have set up that allows for extreme specialization. These means everything humans do is connected to their need to survive.

They don't build and they don't polute other than with their own bodily waste.

Only because the only machine they have at their disposal is their own body. Yet the 'body waste' of many organisms can be extremely damaging to the environment.

We will likely be the only species in the history of this planet that will knowingly cause its own extinction.

Not relevant. We are the only species that knows it exists.

It is unbelieveably foolish and selfish to claim that everything we do is just part of the natural order and therefore justifiable.

Your arguments to support your assertion that what we do is somehow outside of the 'natural order' do nothing but repeat your assertions. Why is a volcano that spews a billion tonnes of CO2 part of the natural order but a cars that do the same are outside it? It is an arbitrary distinction that makes no sense.

I am also not arguing that everything we do is fine. I am saying you cannot claim that what we do is wrong simply because it changes the environment. If you want to argue that environmental change is wrong you need to show that the change causes a net harm to humans.

Edited May 10, 2013 by TimG

[Wilber]

A net harm to humans includes harm to other spieces, you can't diferentiate between the two. We depend on other species for our survival. We don't know what the full extent of our actions will be so just blowing things off and ignoring them until it is too late isn't particularly wise. We do need to pay attention to this stuff because the consequences of ignoring it could be catastrophic and possibly irreversable.

[TimG]

We depend on other species for our survival.

We depend on *some* species for survival. We don't need all of them and we can do a reasonable job of separating the unnecessary species from the necessary ones.

We do need to pay attention to this stuff because the consequences of ignoring it could be catastrophic and possibly irreversible.

We have already wiped out the ecosystems for 50% of the land area and seem to be managing. In many cases the change has been irreversible but change is change - it is not necessarily bad and even when it is bad it is not necessarily irreversible.

I don't have an issue with investigating these issues and taking them into account when we do things but I have a problem with people who block development because of an irrational fear of change. Changing the environment is not necessarily bad and often is necessary.

Edited May 10, 2013 by TimG

[Moonlight Graham]

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?

I never said anything of the sort. Species die off all the time, yes. But we shouldn't be the cause of it through preventable and clearly destructive and irresponsible means. ie: over-fishing or over-hunting, or dumping toxic waste in rivers etc. etc.

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.

Humans need to find a better balance between survival/progress and sustainable living. If you want to live on the planet in ways that benefit humans, I think you'd find that a lot of how we utilize the environment currently is in our short-term benefit but long-term detriment, and not to the overall benefit of the human race.

I also wouldn't necessarily choose the survival or destruction of species and habitats over human gain or vice-versa. Each case needs to be looked at for the particular costs and benefits. ie: If destroying the entire natural habitat of a rare small mammal species (meaning its natural extinction) would mean 500,000 human lives saved due to harvesting of medical ingredients, then sure let's do it. But if the same destruction would only result in a new shopping mall being built then I'd say forget it.

There are natural habitats like flat grasslands that have been virtually wiped out in North America due to farming, and ya that's cause for concern. The world has a major overpopulation problem.

[TimG]

If destroying the entire natural habitat of a rare small mammal species (meaning its natural extinction) would mean 500,000 human lives saved due to harvesting of medical ingredients, then sure let's do it. But if the same destruction would only result in a new shopping mall being built then I'd say forget it.

Well we probably would disagree on the details of any given cost benefit calculation but in principle we agree: sometimes changing the environment is necessary, sometimes it is not. It is not enough to argue that something is bad because it means change.

[eyeball]

You misread my post and you try to blame me? That is rather pathetic.

The post you linked to was simply another example of some smart ass who does not read what was written and chooses to respond to some fantasy he made up.

As I as said: the op was about ocean acidification. If you wanted to introduce 'aquatic acidification' as an unrelated term then you need to provide more explanation if you expect people to follow your context switch.

As I as said... you often leave more than a few typos in your posts leaving us to guess at what it is you're trying to communicate but whatever that is, it's clear enough that you don't have any more of a clue than us.

I know what the OP is about I simply cited aquatic acidification as one more thing that's drawing down our natural capital but since you don't what that is either...

[eyeball]

I don't have an issue with investigating these issues and taking them into account...

Horseshit you don't have issues with accounting for our economy's draw down of natural capital. You avoid it like it was the plague.

[TimG]

Horseshit you don't have issues with accounting for our economy's draw down of natural capital.

I have issues with people that use meaningless phrases like "draw down of natural capital" to oppose whatever they want to oppose. I don't oppose rational cost-benefit analysis that take into account unquantifiable intangibles.

[eyeball]

I have issues with people that use meaningless phrases like "draw down of natural capital" to oppose whatever they want to oppose.

Given your frequent typos perhaps you just don't understand English. What is it specifically about the phrase that is meaningless to you? Maybe I can help.

Draw down in terms of capital means to reduce it i.e. unless you put something back there will be less there to draw from next time...and so on until it's all gone.

I don't oppose rational cost-benefit analysis that take into account unquantifiable intangibles.

I'm not surprised you can add and subtract things that aren't there. It's your inability to account for quantifiable tangibles that you need to address.

[TimG]

Draw down in terms of capital means to reduce it i.e. unless you put something back there will be less there to draw from next time...and so on until it's all gone.

Except who decides when something is 'drawn down'? Who decides that an activity is unsustainable? The fact that any activity can be declared 'unsustainable' by an enviro with an agenda means the phrase is meaningless. Edited May 10, 2013 by TimG

[eyeball]

Except who decides when something is 'drawn down'?

Someone who knows what the hell they're talking about would be my first guess.

Who decides that an activity is unsustainable.

In the case of fish I'd say that's a very good question in light of the fact that fishing communities are disappearing everywhere you look - but in any case just about everywhere you also look in the world, it's government fisheries officials. Assuming fishing communities are like canaries what does that tell you? It tells me that most fisheries managers think like you do.

I know, you're a manager of some developing world coal mine that waits until human's start dropping dead before deigning to do anything about it.

Edited May 10, 2013 by eyeball

[waldo]

Yawn.

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.

nonsense! Your average seasonal variation summation is simplistic, and self-serving to your agenda, to say the least! Those existing pH variations are associated with local, regional and seasonal variations... however, typically observed pH variability is associated with standard deviations from 0.004 to 0.277 and ranges spanning 0.024 to 1.430 pH units. Organisms resident in these related ecosystems have adapted to exist within natural ranges of exposure with tolerance limitations... your applying a broad brush average variation summation figure is meaningless to particular organisms already approaching tolerance levels. Your "life adapts" fits your perpetual jingoistic Adapt-R-Us mentality... "life adapts"... until it can't!