World's oceans in 'shocking' decline

[a777pilot]

Ok, you have to make a point or I'll just ignore everything you say, which I was seriously on the fence of doing anyway.

I suggest you ignore me. That would be a good thing.....for both of us. You obviously don't like to think.

 

[K1052]

I don't understand why we continue have the discussion in this vein. We are not going to reduce carbon emissions to 0. It simply won't happen. Our CO2 output will continue to be too high. So what is plan B... science needs to be working on plan B, instead of pressing society for something that will never and can never happen.

CO2 emissions would never hit zero but we can take most of the load off the ecosystem by eliminating the burning of most fossil fuels (power generation and transportation). It's expensive but certainly technologically achievable.

 

[gaidensensei]

It is scientifically accepted that the autotrophic producers such as cyanobacteria and algae in the ocean is responsible for 50-70% of the world's oxygen supply - source and claims vary, but it is generally accepted that it is well over 50%.

But to address rising CO2 levels from the ocean, it may be best to confer upon the cycle of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the first place. There is an accepted depiction of the cycle and is often taught in marine biology.

 

[Jaskalas]

The oceans have easily withstood higher temperatures, and possibly higher CO2 levels.

We've a long ways to go.

 

[LegendKiller]

I suggest you ignore me. That would be a good thing.....for both of us. You obviously don't like to think.

Yeah, says the guy who ignores the positive environmental impact of the EPA over the last 40 years.

 

[KlokWyze]

I suggest you ignore me. That would be a good thing.....for both of us. You obviously don't like to think.

How is that obvious? That doesn't make any sense. So you actually believe the EPA should be dismantled and funding should be cut? So we not a single organization looking out for our health or the environment? You honestly believe that companies like Dupont wouldn't pollute even more?

 

[ShawnD1]

The "free market" lovers (aka, the libertopian rights) would love to think that the world is so much better with a small government and more "personal property rights". However, the very initialization of the EPA shows that companies don't give a shit and won't ever give a shit if it stands in the way of profits.

I don't understand why tea party people think the EPA is not required. Anyone who has worked with chemicals or garbage knows that the cost of dealing with disposal is absolutely huge. At one place I worked, the cost of bulk methanol was actually LESS than the cost of waste dispoal! If we could just dump that shit on the ground, it would lower the chemical costs by 1/2! In a shit hole like China, that's exactly what they do....

He's insane, because there is no possible way to ever bring down those emissions to zero. Unless of course you kill off every living thing on the planet, but then you end up starving the plant life, which then dies, and the planet becomes a barren wasteland. Bravo!

It can be brought to 0 by trapping large amounts of CO2. Of course the scale of that would cost trillions of dollars so that probably won't happen any time soon.

 

[gaidensensei]

He's insane, because there is no possible way to ever bring down those emissions to zero. Unless of course you kill off every living thing on the planet, but then you end up starving the plant life, which then dies, and the planet becomes a barren wasteland. Bravo!

Not necessarily, see photorespiration.

 

[a777pilot]

How is that obvious? That doesn't make any sense. So you actually believe the EPA should be dismantled and funding should be cut? So we not a single organization looking out for our health or the environment? You honestly believe that companies like Dupont wouldn't pollute even more?

Oh, no. There is no way I trust Dupont. But I don't trust the EPA either.

Oh, yes, one of the EPA's great "accomplishments" was the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. Way to go there EPA.

 

[a777pilot]

p.s., Yes, I want to disband the EPA.

 

[NeoV]

it only took the 2nd page for dummy to mention Al Gore - the over/under on that was 12 posts

still waiting for dummy #2 to come into the thread and tell us that we aren't losing trees....

 

[gaidensensei]

p.s., Yes, I want to disband the EPA.

That's like asking, in retrospect, a software company to not list the minimum recommendations for hardware necessary to run it.

The only difference is that the EPA "enforces" requirements.

 

[K1052]

Oh, yes, one of the EPA's great "accomplishments" was the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. Why to go there EPA.

Er...no. Thiokol knew there was a problem but NASA pressured their upper management into getting the rank and file engineers to OK the launch. A basic (and total) breakdown of NASA risk assessment procedures...same thing happened with Columbia.

 

[a777pilot]

it only took the 2nd page for dummy to mention Al Gore - the over/under on that was 12 posts

still waiting for dummy #2 to come into the thread and tell us that we aren't losing trees....

Well, that sort of depends on the area you pick, now doesn't it? If you say the world in general, then I might tend to believe you. If you say just the USA, then, not.

 

[Lemon law]

Earth to air pilot, please explain how the environmental protection agency is responsible for the space shuttle disaster. Here silly me I thought it was Nasa.

 

[a777pilot]

Er...no. Thiokol knew there was a problem but NASA pressured their upper management into getting the rank and file engineers to OK the launch. A basic (and total) breakdown of NASA risk assessment procedures...same thing happened with Columbia.

I agree with everything just posted but that is not what I am talking about. Think EPA.

 

[a777pilot]

Earth to air pilot, please explain how the environmental protection agency is responsible for the space shuttle disaster. Here silly me I thought it was Nasa.

No.

You do your own research and discover the facts on your own. If I just tell you, you will never learn nor believe.

Think EPA and the shuttle. That is the starting point.

 

[bfdd]

I'm not saying it's inherently unnatural for us to modify the world, I'm saying that the majority of humans appreciate the world's unaltered state and the animals that live in it. It just seems like you want us to live in an uglier and less pleasant world. I'm not sure why anyone would want that.

I am just going to drop it because I don't want to post long walls of text on why I believe things I believe. No one likes walls of text.

 

[a777pilot]

Got to go. Thunderstorm and tornado watches for this area.

 

[SparkyJJO]

It can be brought to 0 by trapping large amounts of CO2. Of course the scale of that would cost trillions of dollars so that probably won't happen any time soon.

No, it cannot be, unless you plan on having every person and every critter wear some sort of collection bottle to bury or something like that

OK, so I'm taking it to a silly extreme. So let's rule out CO2 by critters breathing. You plan on burying the rest in some giant tanks underground? Limited capacity, what do you do when you fill those up? Besides, how much CO2 would you put out in the process of manufacturing and burying said tanks?

The more you think about it, the more you realize how crazy it is to try and bury a gas. Especially when a volcano then erupts and totally negates whatever you did somehow manage to bury

 

[K1052]

I agree with everything just posted but that is not what I am talking about. Think EPA.

 

[gaidensensei]

I don't really follow on the EPA and Columbia are related.. aside from this

http://www.epa.gov/columbia/index.html

Response to the Columbia Space Shuttle Accident
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
EPA joins the nation in mourning to the tragic loss of the crew of the Space Shuttle Columbia and helping NASA in the recovery efforts. You should know that within hours of the disaster, our emergency response operations centers in both Washington DC and Dallas were coordinating with federal, state and local officials - and dispatching hundreds of our hazardous materials experts into the field. Over the past week, we have continued to deploy sophisticated scientific instrumentation - the ASPECT plane and TAGA mobile laboratory - to ensure public safety. I am proud of swift progress being made by our dedicated EPA employees and hope our efforts help NASA bring peace to the crew's families.
EPA Administrator Christie Whitman

 

[Craig234]

I don't really follow on the EPA and Columbia are related.. aside from this

It's another right-wing myth.

They spread the myth the EPA required dangerous foam be used, causing the crash.

The investigation focused on the foam strike from the very beginning. Incidents of debris strikes from ice and foam causing damage during take-off were already well known, and had damaged orbiters, most noticeably during STS-45, STS-27, and STS-87.[29] Tile damage had also been traced to ablating insulating material from the cryogenic fuel tank in the past. The composition of the foam insulation had been changed in 1997 to exclude the use of freon, a chemical that is suspected to cause ozone depletion; while NASA was exempted from legislation phasing out CFCs, the agency chose to change the foam nonetheless. STS-107 used an older "lightweight tank" (a design that was succeeded by the "superlightweight tank", both being upgrades from the original space shuttle external tank) where the foam was sprayed on to the larger cylindrical surfaces using the newer freon-free foam. However, the bipod ramps were manufactured from BX-250 foam which was excluded from the EPA regulations and did use the original freon formula. The composition change did not contribute to the accident.[30] In any case, the original formulation had shown frequent foam losses, as discussed earlier in this article.

 

[ShawnD1]

It's another right-wing myth.

They spread the myth the EPA required dangerous foam be used, causing the crash.

It's not really left vs right as it is crazy vs not crazy

 

[Craig234]

It's not really left vs right as it is crazy vs not crazy

It's pretty much just the right-wing, with their 'big bad evil government EPA' myths.