Protecting what we love.

[Mike Boswell]

I'm not a scientist, but I’ve done a bit of reading about ocean acidification and damage to reefs caused by warming ocean waters. The stuff I read is very worrisome, and I wonder how many divers are aware that we could be losing much of the undersea world that we love so much.

As an example, here in California, there is a concern that warming waters will affect our magnificent kelp forests and the ecological systems that they support.

My question is, do we believe these threats are real? Do we believe they will impact us as divers? If so, what can we do about them?

For further reading: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/futureoa.html

[waterpirate]

My opinion is that you can not fight mother nature. Nature is constantly changing and evolving the enviroment in which we live. It is a tad bit presumptious to think that we can alter or turn back change. The fact that we have impacted the natural order or evolution of the planet goes without saying, but the only way to fix that or change it, is to evacuate the planet. Making changes to slow or draw out the proccess of things just adds a short term respite on the inevitable.
Eric

[adurso]

See this thread: http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/pub/172704-how-about-global-warming-thing.html

Many interesting cites and real science from all sides

[dburg30]

The VERY FIRST statement..


The acidity of the oceans has increased since pre-industrial times and will continue to increase in coming decades, due to human-generated carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions

Says a lot IMO, and the last part of that "will continue to increase due to humans" may or not be what the result would have been anyway.

I mean if it was increasing before the industrial time, what's to say it wouldnt have kept increasing humans or not??? I didnt even read the rest of it since the very first thing said seems to contradict itself..

[dburg30]

See this thread: http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/pub/172704-how-about-global-warming-thing.html

Many interesting cites and real science from all sides

too bad that thread doesnt open for me.

[Mike Boswell]

too bad that thread doesnt open for me.

It's "The Pub". You have to join. Go to User CP, Group Memberships, and Join the Regulars group.

[Mike Boswell]

The VERY FIRST statement..



Says a lot IMO, and the last part of that "will continue to increase due to humans" may or not be what the result would have been anyway.

I mean if it was increasing before the industrial time, what's to say it wouldnt have kept increasing humans or not??? I didnt even read the rest of it since the very first thing said seems to contradict itself..

"Pre-industrial times" means before we started burning of coal and oil to power the industrial revolution. So the sentence means that acidification has increased since we started burning coal and oil, because of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

When CO2 dissolves in water it forms carbonic acid, which increases the acidity of the water.

[Doc Harry]

Nothing we do to protect our oceans and our environment will amount to anything unless we focus our efforts on the root cause.

The earth's population has doubled since I was born.

What are you doing to slow the earth's population growth? How many children do you have? What are you doing to empower women's reproductive rights?

[Narced Out]

I was watching something about reefs the other day ago, and it said that when the water or air gets too hot above coral, the coral releases some sort of chemical to make the sky cloudy. Very interesting and only makes me wonder what we could use for that to stop this warming of the waters.

[drbill]

Agree on population being the source of many of our environmental, as well as societal, ills.

I have had but one child and have no plans to have another.

Anyone who seriously believes that humans have not altered the environment over the past 200 years (or the past 10,000) is not well-versed in the scientific literature. Ocean acidification is, of course, but one example. Non-natural organo-chlorinated compounds, ones not present due to natural sources, have dispersed throughout the globe due to human activities.

[RoatanMan]

"My question is, do we believe these threats are real?"

Anyone who has been diving for 20 years (or less!) on the same reef will tell you that yes- the reefs worldwide are deteriorating.

"Do we believe they will impact us as divers?"

The experience will be less pleasurable, but then again.... you can't know what you don't know. A lot of people come back from Nassau and similar places all aglow.

"If so, what can we do about them?"

Don't travel to, or stay at, or build anything in paradise. That should help a lot.


As an example, here in California, there is a concern that warming waters will affect our magnificent kelp forests and the ecological systems that they support.

A concern that is often mis-used to support whatever cause someone is selling.

[drbill]

I was watching something about reefs the other day ago, and it said that when the water or air gets too hot above coral, the coral releases some sort of chemical to make the sky cloudy. Very interesting and only makes me wonder what we could use for that to stop this warming of the waters.

I also read that study and would post a link to it if I could remember the names of the authors. I found it quite interesting.

[danvolker]

Nothing we do to protect our oceans and our environment will amount to anything unless we focus our efforts on the root cause.

The earth's population has doubled since I was born.

What are you doing to slow the earth's population growth? How many children do you have? What are you doing to empower women's reproductive rights?
I agree we need to curtail reproductive rates, but for all practical purposes, there is nothing we can do to effect this..
Far too many major religions with large population bases will NOT allow this...Many WANT their followers to "be Fruitful and Multiply", essentially winning the power struggle by dominating every major country in the world they can get a foot hold into, with their followers....

We have as much chance of reducing our population size as does bacteria in a petri dish....it will grow to exponential, then reach a die off point. I don't like it, but even if we don't die off the way bacteria do, there will be tough times ahead.

Forget trying to limit the CO2 emissions....there will be too many countries that will not allow their economies to suffer from this. It can't work.

Someone needs to find a great way to bind up the Co2, whether with some form of plant life that wont release it suddenly by it's own die off, or by some money making process...

DanV

[Doc Harry]

danvolker,

You are so right, controlling the earth's population does seem like an impossible task. Many 3rd world countries have exploding populations because women do not have any say in the reproductive process. That's why our only hope at this point to empower women world-wide. It's the only hope. They're much better human beings than us men anyway.

[Kern]

A small percentage of the population has produced most of the industrial pollutants in the past. Exponential population growth. The rising tide of the middle class in China & India, who want what we've always had, will make things interesting in the future. They're bound to use the very worst technologies to get there.

If things go topsy turvy enough, the ocean may release its Clathrate. That could make things interesting.

An organism that doesn't know when or how to stop reproducing. Sounds a bit cancerous really. Such is life.

[captain]

Population is the ultimate problem, only so many can dance on the head of a pin. Sooner or later something, global nuclear war or disease, astronomical event such as an asteroid strike or famine will severely reduce it. Whatever it may be ain't going to be pretty but I figure I'll probably be long gone. If you are going to worry about your decedents best advise is don't produce any.

[vinegarbiscuit]

I do believe it's real. Before the industrial revolution, greenhouse gas emissions originated with livestock and natural phenomena like the occasional volcano. I'm willing to bet that the combined effect of our industrial and power plant emissions are the equivalent of multiple volcanoes erupting continuously for the last few hundred years. We've progressed a great deal of the last few centuries, but our population has increased significantly, resulting in a bigger carbon footprint. Worse - and I say this as an energy historian and professional petroleum consultant - our entitlement to consume has grown exponetially. There are things we can do to reduce our carbon footprint, but it will take a concerted effort by individuals and societies as whole holding themselves and governments accountable. I don't know what the chances of that happening are, to be honest. People don't like change, especially when it's inconvenient, and carries not-insignificant upfront costs. Nor do we like holding ourselves accountable. The litigous society we live in today is proof of that.

Whatever happens, I doubt we'll irreparably damage planet Earth. It's stronger than we'll ever be, and while we may render the place inhabitable, Earth will find a way to go on. It will be changed beyond recognition, and much of the flora and fauna we know may be rendered extinct, but Earth will still be here until the sun turns into a red giant and 4-5 billion years hence. I doubt we'll last that long, though.

So, what can we do? A million little things, from using ocean-friendly sunscreens to living in homes that don't cost a fortune in electricity to heat and cool. Demanding tax credits for insultating our homes or installing solar panels. Shop around for a utility that has lots of renewables in its power generation portfolio, and demand government subsidies to help get alternate energies off the ground (we'll have better luck with that outside the US than in it, I know). Cutting down on packaging at the grocery store, even if it's just bringing your own bags. Driving smaller cars, and supporting alternate fuels for locomotion and power generation where and when we can. Using public transport, where possible (not always easy outside a major metropolis). Lots of recycling. Planting native flora in our gardens, so we're not spending a fortune on water and fertilizers that inevitably run off and wreck all soprts of havoc on the ocean. A million tiny, different things. But there are developing countries that would look askance at having to grow their economies under such restrictive conditions. "North America and Europe didn"t have to, so why should we?" is the refrain I hear. That doesn't absolve us from responsibility, through. Or it shouldn't.

[adurso]

How about not politicizing environmental issues.

Once actual problems are thrown into the political arena the issue becomes polarized.

Once polarized there are "winners" and "losers"

No one wants to lose....

So everyone loses

[vinegarbiscuit]

Sadly, environmental issues become inextricably linked with politics eventually. Case in point: here in HI, solar power needs government subsidies to make it work. The upfront investment is about $43,000, but unless each household gets in the region of a 40% subsidy (I was talking about the numbers with my boss today, coincidentally), it's well-nigh impossible to even make a dent in oil's share of the power generation mix here. The fact of the matter is - and this is true all over the Western world - certain political parties are more likely than others to embrace a 'green' platform that includes alternate fuel subsidies and the like. Here in the US, for example, Jimmy Carter offered massive incentives for energy conservation and fuel switching, measures that were promptly shelved by the Reagan Administration. Global energy use is a key to addressing environmental issues, and as we all know - years of superpower involvement in the Middle East attest to this - energy and politics go hand in hand. It's the nature of the beast. I think if we all recognize that we're in this together, the mentality of winners vs losers would dissipate. It's a bold hope, though.

[drbill]

How about not politicizing environmental issues.

It certainly seems to me that certain political philosophies lend themselves towards supporting environmental issues while others feel economics trumps the environment (obviously both are important). Of course there are exceptions, but given the current crap (er, I mean crop) of recently elected representatives I question whether much of a constructive nature will be done for a while.

[H2ODoc]

... Many 3rd world countries have exploding populations because women do not have any say in the reproductive process. That's why our only hope at this point to empower women world-wide. It's the only hope. They're much better human beings than us men anyway.

My wife had a HUGE say in her reproductive process, and we have 3 kids.

[Mike Boswell]

It is possible to use much less energy than the average American now uses. Most of the world already does it, because energy is more expensive in most places.

Energy is cheap in the US, so naturally, people use a lot of it. But when gasoline prices rose to over $4.00 per gallon a couple of years ago, people dropped their Hummers like a bad habit.

One of our problems is that the cost mechanism for energy is broken. In our economic system, the cost of something is part of the price we pay. But the full costs of our energy use are not included in the price. We need to fix that.

[Mike Boswell]

It certainly seems to me that certain political philosophies lend themselves towards supporting environmental issues while others feel economics trumps the environment (obviously both are important). Of course there are exceptions, but given the current crap (er, I mean crop) of recently elected representatives I question whether much of a constructive nature will be done for a while.

Interestingly, one would think the Conserve-ative party would take the lead in conservation.

[H2ODoc]

It is possible to use much less energy than the average American now uses. Most of the world already does it, because energy is more expensive in most places.
....

It is certainly POSSIBLE, but... are "we" (Americans) willing to change our lifestyle to that which reduces our energy consumption to that of the rest of the world? That would be a 77% reduction.

Calculate the carbon footprint of a dive trip that involves traveling 2000 miles from home. Yikes. Are we all willing to forgo that? :shocked2:

Cutting back on those things that consume energy, also leads to a massive drop in our economy. It's gonna hurt BAD when we cut consumerism that much. Real bad.

[captain]

It is certainly POSSIBLE, but... are "we" (Americans) willing to change our lifestyle to that which reduces our energy consumption to that of the rest of the world? That would be a 77% reduction.

Calculate the carbon footprint of a dive trip that involves traveling 2000 miles from home. Yikes. Are we all willing to forgo that? :shocked2:

Cutting back on those things that consume energy, also leads to a massive drop in our economy. It's gonna hurt BAD when we cut consumerism that much. Real bad.

Exactly, what are you actually willing to give up, in most instances it's proven to be not much.

[dumpsterDiver]

What can we do? The most important thing is probably to STOP DIVING. Think of all the fossil fuel wasted to travel via airlines, then on to a deisel boat spewing fuel, soot and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and the water.

At the very least, take up freediving, so you will not have to run those horribly polluting air compressors.

[tyesai]

Exactly, what are you actually willing to give up, in most instances it's proven to be not much.

Every little bit helps I suppose, but then I think of how I, one aircraft mechanic, pumped 650,000lbs of gas, wich is about, 95,000 gallons in one day and I say to myself, **** it.

Think about that on your next trip to the Fiji or Bonaire ect; ect;

[Mike Boswell]

What can we do? The most important thing is probably to STOP DIVING. Think of all the fossil fuel wasted to travel via airlines, then on to a deisel boat spewing fuel, soot and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and the water.

At the very least, take up freediving, so you will not have to run those horribly polluting air compressors.

I wonder what the "carbon footprint" of a plane ride or a tank of air is?

[TMHeimer]

What can we do? The most important thing is probably to STOP DIVING. Think of all the fossil fuel wasted to travel via airlines, then on to a deisel boat spewing fuel, soot and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and the water.

At the very least, take up freediving, so you will not have to run those horribly polluting air compressors.

Yeah, seriously. Ironic that many divers post about other peoples' ecological infractions. Sort of like "we're better". But divers' travels, etc. is still a drop in the bucket when it comes to solving all the problems.

[Sas]

The rising tide of the middle class in China & India, who want what we've always had, will make things interesting in the future. They're bound to use the very worst technologies to get there.

Just like the West did. It's not really fair to expect countries like China and India to limit their use of resources when the West didn't to get to where they are now.

Basically people only start caring about clean air and pollution when they have a decent standard of living. People only start reducing the amount they reproduce when their country is economically developed.

Not sure there is a way around this.

[Mike Boswell]

I think there is lots we can do.

Simple conservation.
More efficient lighting.
Solar, wind, and nuclear power.
Mass transit - trains instead of autos.
Electric cars.

The thing is, oil won't last forever anyway, and it is polluting. We all know it, and we all know we need to do better. Might as well just get on with it.

[Doc Harry]

Just like the West did. It's not really fair to expect countries like China and India to limit their use of resources when the West didn't to get to where they are now.

It certainly would be hypocritical, wouldn't it? But we can provide guidance so that they don't make the same mistakes that we did. Not that anyone would listen...

[Mike Boswell]

When you say that developing nations should have the right to make the same mistakes we did, are you saying that we should stand by silently while they kill off their lakes and rivers and forests, sicken their people with mercury and asbestos, deplete and squander their natural resources, kill their birds with DDT, and hunt their wildlife to extinction? Of course not.

The West has made mistakes, no doubt about it. The mistakes we made hurt us. That's why we cared, and why we changed our behavior and began fixing the problems. It would be irresponsible of us NOT to share what we have learned with our neighbors.

China and India have made their own mistakes, overpopulation being a big one, and they do not have the God-given right to help us to destroy the planet in the name of fairness.

[Brad Robertson]

Hello folks,
I have been a diver and ocean lover for a few years now and have just created a PADI distinctive specialty called shark discovery.With the goal of using these funds to instigate education and conservation programs here in Balearic Islands Spain.
There are soooo many issues facing our oceans these days that one solution is not sufficient.
Over Population, pollution, overfishing, habitat destruction, increasing ocean acidity,dead zones..the list goes on!!
I think that all these problems have a common root!!! Lack of education.
As divers I think we have the ability to get a message across to people on our own local level, lets face it divers are all over the world and if we decided to do just one small project each then this would be a great way to begin the understanding of these issues and also begin the changing of life practices that are needed to give OUR OCEANS a chance of survival.
We have the power and the passion!!!After all they are our oceans and they are worth saving!!!

[H2ODoc]

...are you saying that we should stand by silently while they kill off their lakes and rivers and forests, sicken their people with mercury and asbestos, deplete and squander their natural resources, kill their birds with DDT, and hunt their wildlife to extinction? Of course not.

The West has made mistakes, no doubt about it. The mistakes we made hurt us. That's why we cared, and why we changed our behavior and began fixing the problems. It would be irresponsible of us NOT to share what we have learned with our neighbors.
...

So... practically, how do you get them to stop doing this?

[waterpirate]

I think there is lots we can do.

Simple conservation.
More efficient lighting.
Solar, wind, and nuclear power.
Mass transit - trains instead of autos.
Electric cars.

The thing is, oil won't last forever anyway, and it is polluting. We all know it, and we all know we need to do better. Might as well just get on with it.

You forgot geothermal heating and cooling, it's how I make my living. I think it should be mandatory for new construction.
Eric

[H2ODoc]

You forgot geothermal heating and cooling, it's how I make my living. I think it should be mandatory for new construction.
Eric

In my understanding, the ground source fluid is used to condense the refrigerant in the condenser when in cooling mode, right? This seems to be an obviously more efficient way to provide A/C than air-cooled condensers.

In heating mode, though, does the compressor still operate? And if so, how does it's electricity use compare to using forced air heating (energy-usage).

(sorry - a little nerdy, and maybe off-topic, but it is probably an unknown technology to most of us!)

[Mike Boswell]

So... practically, how do you get them to stop doing this?

This is perhaps the biggest issue humanity has yet faced. The individual problems - alternate energy, conservation, pollution control, etc. -can be solved to a great extent.

But how do you solve the global political problem? Many countries say they have no money, others feel it's unfair to expect them to sacrifice. Some countries will benefit.

The US seems, for the moment, to be paralysed while the debate rages.

Greenland is looking forward to a warmer climate, while Bangladesh is facing certain disaster and their neighbors are terrified of the consequences.

Canada is looking forward to a Northwest Passage, while the Maldives want to buy land in other countries so that they will have a place to live when their country is gone.

[vshearer]

You forgot geothermal heating and cooling, it's how I make my living. I think it should be mandatory for new construction.
Eric

It is kinda limited based on location if I am not mistaken. But I do agree that it is a resource that will be leveraged in the near future as deep earth penetration is made feasible.

[Mike Boswell]

It's not really fair to expect countries like China and India to limit their use of resources when the West didn't to get to where they are now.

Basically people only start caring about clean air and pollution when they have a decent standard of living. People only start reducing the amount they reproduce when their country is economically developed.

I agree that Chinese and Indians ought to have a decent standard of living. Trouble is, their very existence is threatened by a warming planet. About two billion people in Asia depend on snowmelt from the Tibetan Plateau for their water, food and electrical power. And those rivers may soon dry up.

Tibetan Plateau - National Geographic Magazine (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/04/tibetan-plateau/larmer-text.html)

[knotical]

I also read that study and would post a link to it if I could remember the names of the authors. I found it quite interesting.
Graham Jones ?
Healthy coral reefs produce clouds and precipitation (http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0303-hance_coralclouds.html)

[Brad Robertson]

What a subject to be discussing folks, so many variables, so many opinions and so many damn problems!!!
What is the common problem ,apart from lack of education, that all these issues share?
Government inability to honesty and properly run their individual countries?
I dont know, I am just a dive instructor!!!
But if this is a common problem then doesn´t that mean that the solutions lie within individuals...on a mass scale?
Bruce Lee says it all..."You must go beyond them"
I live in Spain, the biggest shark finning nation in Europe..theres a challenge for a one man band!!!
On a local level with enough passion and drive I am sure we can all make a difference, and a peaceful difference at that!!!
Any solutions to this gigantic problem.Please let me know!!!Very keen to learn!!!

[jeffknebl]

i think your right

[jeffknebl]

I'm worried

[captain]

The Earth doesn't care if we drive a hybrid.

What the Earth Knows: an article by Robert B. Laughlin | The American Scholar (http://www.theamericanscholar.org/what-the-earth-knows/)

[drbill]

The Earth doesn't care if we drive a hybrid.

What the Earth Knows: an article by Robert B. Laughlin | The American Scholar (http://www.theamericanscholar.org/what-the-earth-knows/)

Must agree that within the framework of geologic time, these things matter little (with the possible exception of persistent chemicals that are general biocides and not of natural origin).

Looking at it from an even larger perspective, the cosmological, the Earth will burn to a cinder and the oceans be vaporized when the Sun novas.

Nothing we do will ultimately matter... except to us and our offspring within our own small sliver of time/space. As the environmental poet Gary Snyder once wrote: "Knowing that nothing need be done is where we begin to move from."

[tyesai]

Gary Snyder

oooops, I was on total auto pilot, meant to google it, somehow in a matter of seconds I pasted it to quick reply and hit add. Now I can't delete it, LOL.