• Welcome to ScubaBoard

  1. Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

    Benefits of registering include

    • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
    • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
    • You can make this box go away

    Joining is quick and easy. Login or Register now by clicking on the button

Scientific drilling and climate change

Discussion in 'Marine Science and Physiology' started by charlier, Sep 2, 2017.

  1. charlier

    charlier Marine Scientist

    # of Dives: I just don't log dives
    Location: Seattle/Singapore/Indonesia
    1,034
    603
    113
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2017
    BurhanMuntasser likes this.
  2. tphelps

    tphelps Course Director

    # of Dives: 1,000 - 2,499
    Location: San Francisco, CA
    551
    152
    43
    Nice! Happy to see such large Porites (lobata?) that's healthy. Our massive ones in Kona were killed in the 2015 El Nino bleaching event :(.
     
  3. Wookie

    Wookie Secret Field Agent ScubaBoard Business Sponsor

    22,917
    31,349
    113
    I'm not one to criticize science, but I've sure drilled a lot of holes in live and dead coral heads without having my tender lay on the damn head, or letting my fins make contact with the head. This is piss poor science.

    And by a lot, I mean hundreds. Y'all should be ashamed.
     
    Schwob and kelemvor like this.
  4. charlier

    charlier Marine Scientist

    # of Dives: I just don't log dives
    Location: Seattle/Singapore/Indonesia
    1,034
    603
    113
    Sorry about the piss poor science. I guess you might blame the scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute and the incompetent post-docs, staff scientific divers and graduates students at WHOI.
     
    RyanT likes this.
  5. RyanT

    RyanT Solo Diver

    # of Dives: 500 - 999
    Location: Maryland
    1,767
    1,399
    113
    I agree that it is poor technique, but you're confusing sample collection with science. Poor skills while sampling doesn't necessarily entail "piss poor" science.
     
    Storker and Schwob like this.
  6. Wookie

    Wookie Secret Field Agent ScubaBoard Business Sponsor

    22,917
    31,349
    113
    Science starts with data collection. Poor data collection results in poor results. And WOods Hole is not the end all be all to science, any more than Walmart is representative of excellence in retail.
     
    oldschoolto likes this.
  7. RyanT

    RyanT Solo Diver

    # of Dives: 500 - 999
    Location: Maryland
    1,767
    1,399
    113
    Actually science starts with observation and hypothesis development.
     
  8. Wookie

    Wookie Secret Field Agent ScubaBoard Business Sponsor

    22,917
    31,349
    113
    Truth, but can hypothesis be truly science, or a bunch of grad students sitting around drinking beer and hoping to get their project funded?

    Look. My objection to this whole thing is the bad example it sets. We harp and harp on ScubaBoard and as instructors about not having a bad interaction with marine life, but the pictures make it appear that it's OK if it's for science. The drill rig being used is obviously a tripod mount drill, but it's being used as a hand drill. Had it been used with a tripod, there would have been no coral interaction aside from the hole, which are easily patched with a cement plug made in a red Solo cup. But someone got lazy and didn't set up the tripod. They could have used a Stanley DL-07 drill and stood on the sand and drilled sideways into the head, because guess what? Coral grows in all directions, but that isn't as sexy as drilling down, and if your going to manhandle that particular drill, you have to have a ton of a$$ to hold it straight, so they used gravity instead. But the real infraction is the goober laying on the head, who was steadying the bit and videoing with the go pro. Rolling around on a coral head stresses the hell out of it and likely damaged it. So, observation in the name of science turned into killing or damaging the sample donor, which was completely unnecessary. That's like killing a sperm whale to get a DNA plug.
     
    Schwob and kelemvor like this.
  9. RyanT

    RyanT Solo Diver

    # of Dives: 500 - 999
    Location: Maryland
    1,767
    1,399
    113
    More to my point though, just because the divers failed to maintain neutral buoyancy doesn't mean the core samples they collected were compromised.

    So castigating the science because the divers had less than optimal in-water skills is analogous to claiming that a charter operation is inherently unsafe, because you saw the captain bump a piling while docking the boat.
     
  10. RyanT

    RyanT Solo Diver

    # of Dives: 500 - 999
    Location: Maryland
    1,767
    1,399
    113
    On this point I will agree. We should all be cognizant of our impact on the reefs.

    But likewise, it's exactly this sort of thing...I always find it amusing when non-scientists make claims about how science works. Hypothesis development is not simply a bunch of grad students sitting around and BSing. If you'd like, I'll send you one of my Science papers, that took the best form of hypothesis testing, and used it to help change our understanding of sensory cognition and evolutionary biology.
     

Share This Page