Our Oceans are Under Attack

Discussion in 'All Things Boats & Boating' started by brian eiland, May 19, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    Not refuting your dead zones. Not refuting arctic drilling is inherently dangerous.
    I want to point out, most of the oceans are rather like watery deserts.
    Ocean currents are rivers of life. Shallow breeding areas like the Grand Banks are full of life. Reefs support a multitude of life.

    What is occurring at the bottom of deeps, I don't know, but the surface waters are pretty barren,

    When towing, I always design my voyage plan to use beneficial currents and avoid contrary ones. I'll go out of my way, tow additional miles, to get into a favorable current.

    How do I know I have arrived in a current? A dancing appearance to the water and at night a red glowing sea in a searchlight beam.
    The trillions of eyes of squid and shrimp and other creatures on the surface, reflect red in the searchlight. You don't see that except in a current.

    Most of the oceans are sparsely populated and it's not a new phenomenon.
    Fishermen have always gone to the fish. The fishing grounds.
     
  2. brian eiland
    Joined: Jun 2002
    Posts: 5,067
    Likes: 216, Points: 73, Legacy Rep: 1903
    Location: St Augustine Fl, Thailand

    brian eiland Senior Member

    Fisheries Museum of the Atlantic

    Speaking of the Grand Banks, several years ago I was visiting with a friend up in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia. I had occasion to visit their VERY NICE maritime museum
    https://fisheriesmuseum.novascotia.ca/

    It's an 'eye-opener' ,....to see what use to be those fabulous catches they use to bring in, and the size of those fish. And then compare that with the HUGE decline in fish like on the Grand Banks today,...just unbelievable :!:


    BTW, if you ever get a chance that museum is a real treat.
     
  3. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    It's been over fished for certain.
    in parts of new England coast, lobsters used to be washed up on the beach by wagon loads, raked up and plowed into fields as fertilizer. Or so I've heard.
    I read a university study some years ago, All the participants were self proclaimed wildlife and game conservationists in their political/moral philosophies.
    During the study, the professor had them play a game in which they were rival commercial fishermen. They could reinvest profits in additional and larger vessels. In the course of the game, they seriously over fished the fishing grounds and nearly destroyed them.
    The point of the study, even imaginary wealth, in a competitive arena, can end up taking precedence over the best of intentions.
     
  4. myark
    Joined: Oct 2012
    Posts: 719
    Likes: 27, Points: 38, Legacy Rep: 57
    Location: Thailand

    myark Senior Member

    In New Zealand “There were some fantastic hauls in the early days, the record for one person in one day is 113 kerosene tins, caught by Des Nolan on the Waiatoto River during the 1940s, that's around 2000 kilograms of whitebait,"
    Whitebait was used as chook feed and garden fertilizer but these days if you are lucky in white bait season, may get a cup or two.
    In the 1960,s I remember fishing with granddad Waihi “Bay of Plenty” and he would drop the anchor over the side and pull up large bundle of mussels for bait and the many snapper we caught are about 1.m long in shallow water but now you are lucky to catch a under size snapper in the same region and mussels are no more.
     
  5. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 436
    Likes: 59, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    Study Shows Ocean “Deserts” are Expanding | NOAA
    [​IMG]
    Black areas in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans are the least productive.


    [​IMG]
    Red areas show the expansion of the least productive waters.
    Gray areas remained unproductive through the nine-year study.
    Blue areas are gaining in productivity over the time of the study.
     
  6. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    I'm not a scientist.
    The NOAA scientists are not seamen. They rotate aboard research vessels spending one or two years (broken into short tours) of their total career aboard ship.
    I applied for a captains job and was informed of the above policy. They don't hire seamen for the bridge. Just for deckhands and engineers.

    Why is this pertinent? Scientists go to sea to test their theories.
    Professional seamen are professional objective observers. it's called "keeping watch". I have 43 years watching at sea.

    I have a different interpretation of the data. Check out Pilot Charts sometime. For every month of the year, Pilot Charts show the average currents, winds, storms ect. You will see that currents are not consistent in open ocean, changing month to month and year to year. They submerge, slow down, speed up, change location a degree north or south. Always have.

    I reposted your expanding dead areas picture. Also I post a picture of average currents, tradewinds and trade routes during 18th century.
    http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch2en/conc2en/tradewinds.html
    Then I post a cropped enlarged (to match scale of my picture) N Atlantic section of your dead area picture from which I copied the area between Florida and Gibralter and pasted in MY post of 18th century tradewinds/currents picture.

    You see? I observed over 43 years that life abundantly exists only in currents in deep ocean. I posted that earlier, not as a response to imaginary numbers post.
    NOAA spends a ton of money to learn the same thing over 9 years, but reads the data as a result of global warming.
    Were they LOOKING for global warming evidence? I'd bet money on it.
    The 'dead' area changing? Currents naturally frequently change.

    But not the agenda of global warmists. :D

    The principle danger to marine life is over fishing and indiscriminate fishing. Aquaculture is the best answer I think. since people need to eat. Raise the seafood in marine farms, and leave wild species in peace to re-propagate. Now how to convince commercial fishing businesses to abandon fishing? How? Devote the same advertising money, government pressures, and philosophical zealousness currently devoted to global warming. Easy.
     

    Attached Files:

  7. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 436
    Likes: 59, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    Yob, I thought my post generally agreed with yours, that there are indeed areas of the ocean that are more biologically productive, and there are other areas of the ocean that are less biologically productive (deserts, if you will).

    I also agree with you that over the last few centuries seamen have compiled a lot of useful information about the oceans. And I'm sure that oceanographers use that information whenever possible to supplement their own observations.

    However, the observations of seamen are quite limited. During the age of sail most of their major ocean sailing voyages were confined to the trade-wind routes. And even now, with motorized shipping, the majority of cargo vessels follow a relatively few routes between major ports.

    Oceanographers, on the other hand, attempt to study the whole ocean. In the last few decades they've been able deploy a number of satellites which can sense a wide range of ocean parameters. Had you continued reading the remainder of the article I posted you would have found out how the scientists came to the conclusion they did regarding biological productivity --
    Another limitation of seamen is that they only know about surface ocean currents. In the last decade+ scientists knowledge of the ocean currents has been greatly expanded by the ARGO project, which is a large network of floats deployed throughout all the oceans at various depths. These give oceanographers a much better understanding of how the oceans work.

    Argo | WIKIPEDIA
    [​IMG]

    *It really is unfortunate that you have such a negative opinion about scientists. They generate a tremendous amount of useful information not obtainable anywhere else. Ignoring what they have to say seems tantamount to cutting off one's nose to spite your face.

    EDIT:
    I see Yobarnacle edited his post #186, removing his harangue against scientists, in which he said (among other unkind and inaccurate statements) that only politicians were worse than scientists. I'm glad to see that Yob has reconsidered his hasty words, but by his removing those comments it makes my above statement* a nonsensical orphan.
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2014
  8. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    I am not anti-science. We have marvelous technologies thanks to science and will have more impressive future technologies.
    In addition to closely observing the oceans, I have been successfully involved in multi-million dollar negotiations with foreign officials in many countries on all continents. I do understand people and motives.
    Scientists in physics, chemistry, mathematics, ect have to accept the results of data, interpretation doesn't apply.
    Scientists in natural sciences like biology, climatology, paleontology, ect, are NOT objective observers, possibly the LEAST impartial of observers after politicians.
    They do try to record data accurately and they call that being objective.
    Interpreting the data these scientists can not be objective. Preconceptions color our perceptions.
    They all have theories they want the evidence to support or refute.

    We have the same data. The oceans are in change as is climate. They always have been. The only evidence of WHY the changes are occurring is computer models of theories. Claims that if the model accurately predicts changes, it is proof of validity of the theory.
    Maybe. But failure to accurately predict, it's claimed doesn't necessarily refute the theory. Only means the theory or model needs adjusting. Maybe.
    But all this manipulating and wiggling doesn't inspire confidence.
    When another theory of why exists, a more dependable theory, I favor it. It's this, climate and ocean changes are natural, and have been occurring for eons.

    When the natural constant variation of currents and winds and temperatures are rejected in favor of adherence to a theory that constantly wiggles and readjusts to any conflicting data, I lose confidence not only in the theory, but in the people behind it.
    My trained intuition says SCAM in process.
     
  9. myark
    Joined: Oct 2012
    Posts: 719
    Likes: 27, Points: 38, Legacy Rep: 57
    Location: Thailand

    myark Senior Member

    Eighty percent of pollution to the marine environment comes from the land.
    One of the biggest sources is called nonpoint source pollution, which occurs as a result of runoff.
    Nonpoint source pollution includes many small sources, like septic tanks, cars, trucks, and boats, plus larger sources, such as farms, ranches, and forest areas.
    Millions of motor vehicle engines drop small amounts of oil each day onto roads and parking lots.
    Much of this, too, makes its way to the sea.
    Some water pollution actually starts as air pollution, which settles into waterways and oceans.
    Dirt can be a pollutant.
    Top soil or silt from fields or construction sites can run off into waterways, harming fish and wildlife habitats.
    Nonpoint source pollution can make river and ocean water unsafe for humans and wildlife.
    In some areas, this pollution is so bad that it causes beaches to be closed after rainstorms.
    More than one-third of the shellfish-growing waters of the United States are adversely affected by coastal pollution.
     
  10. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    Your statements, myark, are partially correct and part repeating propaganda. Human caused pollution occurs and is a problem. What do you contemplate as solutions?
    Soil erosion created the river deltas around the world, a natural and eons long process.
    Septic tanks are individual family home sewage treatment systems. They don't pollute.
    All life eats and eliminates. All the feces and urine produced by wildlife is considered natural and not considered pollution. Human feces are NOT natural?
    I will agree that humanity packed by millions in cities of confined area, do pollute. They overwhelm natures mechanisms of coping with waste. Cities are un-natural.
    Natural oil seeps in the oceans floor leak more oil every year than we extract. Parking lot oil drips seem inconsequential.
    Every rain drop is coalesced around a grain of dust. Airbourne dust is necessary for the rains.
    Harsh chemicals spread on fields and ending up in runoff is a problem.
    Belching smoke stacks are a problem.
    My point is much of what is laid at the feet of man, is actually natural and unstoppable.
    Solutions need to be fine tuned, not bludgeons.
     
  11. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    Yes I did edit the post. I hadn't read your post and the edit not in response to your post. I was editing when you posted.
    I edited to make my points clearer and better expressed.
    I claimed in the unedited version, that scientists are NOT unbiased, possibly the least impartial only after politicians. Scientists are human and heir to all human foibles. I moved this to a new post 188. Wasn't dishonest in intent.
    Feel less an orphan?
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2014
  12. myark
    Joined: Oct 2012
    Posts: 719
    Likes: 27, Points: 38, Legacy Rep: 57
    Location: Thailand

    myark Senior Member

    World population

    Year Billion
    1804 1
    1927 2
    1959 3
    1974 4
    1987 5
    1999 6
    2011 7

    In China where I have lived for 9 years over the past 17 years I see acid going straight into the drains out to sea and that’s not counting all the other chemicals used by smaller factories, then India and country’s similar.
    New Zealand for example the dairy farms each have drains that carry cow dung let alone all the fertilizers straight into the sea, then there is the ethanol rising into the air from cow and pig dung that is enormous and that’s a modern country, also animals one time lived in a natural environment when human are very few, but now over populated humans mouth to feed that feast on animals that are farmed in mass, many in appalling evil conditions to satisfy taste buds and greed.
    A good start is vegetarian as imagine if the world did that then all the energy saved and the mass pollution halted...
    However you are right humans are too greedy and unstoppable and sad for our children when humans are so selfish such as taste buds while others starve who by the way poor are a large part of the population who do not have septic tanks.
    Humans are the king of vermin, we fear mass destruction from a nuclear war, however Mother Nature will “as you say” do the natural thing and rid us with diseases and famine "mass destruction" and maybe a nuclear war for the icing on the cake.
    I agree with you it’s unstoppable.
     
  13. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course


    I can not agree with you and am saddened you think mankind is vermin.
    Man is the noblest creature and was the purpose of all of creation.
    I'll not expound further on my religious beliefs, but they are definitely contrary to your philosophy. :)
     
  14. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    http://archaeology.about.com/od/historyofarchaeology/a/history_series.htm

    Bible archaeology was the foundation of modern archaeology, but gradually lost credence after WWII to about 1960, and archaeology diverged as a modern science.
    Why?
    What fell out of favor is, unreliability of research based on preconceptions that color the results.
    Would the same error be seen today in current climatology research?
     

  15. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    Myark posted humans are vermin.
    You didn't object.
    Is it because you agree with him and not with me?

    Is the topic of this thread, that man caused climate change is irrefutable fact and dissent not permitted?
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. rwatson
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,042
  2. ticomique
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    977
  3. Mr. Andersen
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    2,026
  4. Rurudyne
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,647
  5. sdowney717
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    3,950
  6. sdowney717
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,088
  7. oceancruiser
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,938
  8. El_Guero
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    3,297
  9. BPL
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    5,203
  10. Frosty
    Replies:
    99
    Views:
    12,377
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.