IMAX Coral Reef Adventure...

[StSomewhere]

Are reefs less or more healthy now than they were 10 years ago?

Don't clutter the issue with facts.

 

[StSomewhere]

As one of the resident "Junk Science Debunking Experts," St. Somewhere, I can assure you that it's not just vogue today to discredit the crap that is the Kyoto protocol and claims of global warming - I've been doing it for years.

If junk science bothers you, then Crichton's fiction-as-fact novel ought to bother you at least as much, maybe more. For those who haven't seen the book, his alleged evil scientific inept ecoterrorists as villans have somehow devised a way to generate tsunamis at will (no mean trick). Funny that an author of his stature would ignore common literary conventions such as character development and plot closure. This has to be the most rushed ending in his entire body of work, and pasting someone else's "facts" as an appendix in lieu of a proper ending is something no high school English teacher would tolerate.

I'll admit that I frankly don't know where I fall in the global warming believability continuum, but I know the ocean is warming at some of the worlds most beautiful reefs, and the reefs are suffering for it.

 

[derwoodwithasherwood]

Scientific American Frontiers had a segment outlining the investigation of dying coral in the US Virgin Islands. Some coral is eaten away and others have large white dead patches.

They took samples of the dead coral, ground it up and had a look. They were surprised to find a soil fungus (not normally found in the ocean) called Aspergillus in all the samples. Trying to figure out how it got there, they looked at satellite photos. A brown haze of dust was seen stretching from Africa across the Atlantic. Apparently blown off new African farmland and carried on the trade winds to the Caribbean. They surmise that dust could deliver a constant dose of the soil fungus to the water and to the coral.

Again, it's not proven. It does suggest that warming is not directly responsible for the dying coral in that area. And it does show that mankind's actions in one area may have far reaching consequences in another part of the world. Nobody knows for sure if mankind has seriously altered the climate of our planet, or what exactly the consequences will be if we have.

Then again, the Kyoto accord may well be right for the wrong reasons. For example, empirical studies suggest that cancer and asthma rates are higher in industrialized regions (eg: around the Great Lakes). Perhaps we should limit the crap we put in the air anyway...

 

[Boogie711]

Derwood - can you care to elaborate how greenhouse gas emissions are related to asthma or cancer?

They're not. Kyoto does nothing to affect changes in carcinogens or common irritants.

The Mount Pinatubo explosion in 1990 released more greenhouse gasses than over 100 years of manmade emissions, all at once. Obviously, Kyoto would do nothing to prevent that from happening. Yet, according to the ICLEI, Kyoto could cost approximately $500 billion per year for implementation. That annual cost is enough to deliver a permanent source of clean drinking water for every citizen on earth. Just imagine what we could do in year two...

Kyoto is a farce.

 

[saying]

Perhaps we should limit the crap we put in the air anyway...

That's what I'm saying. I don't give a crud about global warming one way or the other. The climate of the Earth changes constantly, from ice ages in Brazil to jungles in Greenland over the course of geologic time.

I just don't understand how you could argue against spouting less polutants into the air so... you know... so you could have fresh air. Not polluting just for the sake of not having pollution everywhere. Well, unless, of course, you are involved in the fossil fuel or manufacturing industries and your livelihood depends on polluting stuff... then I imagine you'd be really psyched to be dumping crap into the water, air, or soil.

Anyway. Reefs are pretty. I like diving so I can see them.

I really gotta check this movie out.

 

[StSomewhere]

They're not. Kyoto does nothing to affect changes in carcinogens or common irritants.

There's actually much more to the subject than just Kyoto, though I'll readily admit it helps if someone needs to frame the issue in strictly black and white terms to further their political position. Frankly, if there is a real problem with Kyoto, its that the poor countries that do much of the harm are exempted for political/socioeconomic reasons.

 

[GlennJ]

I just don't understand how you could argue against spouting less polutants into the air so... you know... so you could have fresh air. Not polluting just for the sake of not having pollution everywhere. Well, unless, of course, you are involved in the fossil fuel or manufacturing industries and your livelihood depends on polluting stuff... then I imagine you'd be really psyched to be dumping crap into the water, air, or soil.

I write software - let's see, directly, of course, I'm not polluting anything but the internet. Of course, my systems don't run without power - oops, there's some pollution. And my drives & chips are manufactured by a process that... oops, pollution again. I work at home, but I do use a car occasionally to take my kids to school and... oops, more pollution, etc. etc.

I don't think anyone is saying, "hey, let's go pollute!". However, some of the brainless ideas that have been advanced without studying the true economic impact vs the actual supposed benefits is ludicrous.

Of course, it's more fun and less work to just go off half-cocked because the opening paragraph of a study says what great things it will accomplish (and wickedness that it will abolish...)

 

[aquaticaggie]

The Kyoto Protocol has its winners and losers as with any political or economic issue, the core industrialized nations are the looser and the periphery undeveloped nations are the winners. In this I mean they have the most to gain overall. With on of the key goals to reduce the amount of green house emissions, it would have a staggering effect on the United States to invest capital to make its industry green friendly. With core countries sinking billions of dollars into retro fits the periphery is exempt for socio-economic reasons (lack of funding, education, technology, whatever). While the cores industry stalls to do conversions the periphery plays catch up to be bigger players on the global trade scene. Their idea is “hey you made the mess, you got the head start, and you foot the bill while we attempt to have our day in the sun”

As far as global warming is concerned there is no argument that it is happening or that it is falling into a global cycle that has been in existence for billions of years. However the alarming thing is the rate in which it is occurring, it is accelerating. Not to aid the increased warming is methane deposits in continental margin sediments. These deposits have given rise to the “gas hydrate gun” effect/theory. What is means is that as the average ocean temperature increases, these deposits of methane that usually exist as a stable solid, almost ice, will reach a critical point in which they instantly turn to vapor releasing mass amounts or green house gasses. Not so good.

If all the ice in the sea melts then the average ocean will raise some what. The problem is when continental ice sheets melt we have a whole other story. Places like Antarctica with ice ranging from feet to miles thick would dump all that into the sea, which is the problem. As just an interesting tid bit about our water, there is enough water still locked with in the earth to refill the oceans, theoretically. It is slowly making its way out so it looks like with in the next 4.5 billion years we will be screwed any way.

As to what derwood was saying about dust storms from Africa reaching across the Atlantic, I have posted a sat image to illustrate the magnitude of such events.

 

[JasonH20]

..ah, yeah...well, anyway, back to the movie...

I enjoyed "The Making Of" on the DVD as much as the movie.

I cycle back and forth between the two, my 2 year old son absolutely loves both. I have the whole movie memorized after watching it about a bizzilion times. Even then, it's still pretty neat to watch.

 

[StSomewhere]

One of the things that I felt was a bit foolish was the dive to 300' to *inspect* the reefs.

As a diver it was somewhat interesting, but hey, the guy had already got bent once... not sure what earth shattering discoveries that 300' dive resulted in. IMO those types of explorations are better done in a submersible where it is safer, one can stay down MUCH MUCH longer, and go much deeper as well.

The 300' dive was with Richard Pyle to collect species samples. The reason HH got bent was that he didn't properly understand the deep diving decompression protocols with a rebreather (he says as much). HH was one of only two guys qualified to run the IMAX camera underwater and as the producer had sole responsibility for what shots to get.