Is the ocean broken?

The subtropics extend up to Kentucky then transitions to temperate climate north of there.

 

I can say that no one on this thread is the last one on the right. So that leaves only two choices.

-Will (Dragonfly)

 

<laugh>

 

The future is now: Long-term research shows ocean acidification ramping up on the Great Barrier Reef

• While long-term data exist for CO2 and ocean acidification trends in open oceans, there have been very few long-term data on these trends in coastal waters around the world
• Under reduced pH conditions coral's calcium carbonate skeletons take longer to form and weaken
  
• Seawater CO2 on the GBR has risen 6 percent over the past 10 years and matches the rate of CO2 increases in the atmosphere
• The minimum CO2 concentrations measured today were likely to already have passed the highest CO2 levels expected 60 years ago
  
• The researchers concluded that the Reef's rich carbonate seafloor is not buffering against ocean acidification as previously thought
  
• They also found that the numbers of both baby coral and coralline algae are plummeting as CO2 increases across the Reef
  
• And that undesirable seaweed is thriving at high CO2 locations

The study was published in Nature Scientific Reports

 

The world it is a changing.

Any research on the ethics of even attempting to affect a return to the previous comfortable state of being?

I suppose the whole fight over whether or not humans are responsible is intended to answer that question.

If, one sees humans and our activities (behaviors) as inherently a part of the natural world, one could argue that we may not be obligated to attempt interfering with a process that came about by nature itself. If we take it upon ourselves to change our behaviors in order to affect the natural path (the path that came about free of the self-conscious efforts of humans), we may then be truly stepping outside of nature to impose our own free will upon a world that would move naturally in another direction.

If, on the other hand, the natural world is viewed as separate from the realm of humans, perhaps we should make every attempt to build a giant space ark and remove ourselves from any possibility of causing further impact. To even attempt to correct the changes we have caused is to indulge in the same mistake that brought us here.

The old Zen story of the master walking with his student when they come upon a turtle trying to make his way across the busy path. The student bent down and scooped up the turtle to help it across the roadway. The master angrily chastised the student for interfering with the natural course of the turtle's life. Immediately, a chastened student ran over and grabed the turtle and returned it to where he found it. The student returned to his master's side feeling he had learned his lesson, but the master shouted at him, "You did it again."

-Will (Dragonfly)

 

Move to another planet?
What did Mars ever do to you?

 

Frankly, I'm not sure if ethics is a primary motivator for almost anyone. Most everything we do to survive, whether individually or collectively, affects nature, and we seldom have major ethical deliberations about what we do. Whether it's killing a deer for its meat and hide, or chopping down a tree for firewood or lumber, or burning fossil fuels for heat and energy. We do it not because it doesn't harm something else (it does hurt the deer, the tree, and the strip-mined landscape), but because it makes our life easier.

To me, the reason we should be concerned about AGW has little to do with ethics (though I sometimes do appeal to ethics if I think my audience might be persuaded), and a lot to do with enlightened self-interest. We go to the trouble of building septic systems because we don't like the smell of raw sewage and the ravages of cholera. We go to the trouble of building air-tight wood-burning stoves and chimneys because we don't like our homes filled with smoke. Likewise, I advocate an interest in limiting our CO2 production because of the adverse affects to we humans of losing coral reefs and fish nurseries, of having to protect/move/abandon many cities, and of hot tropical areas becoming increasingly hostile to humans, who are forced to migrate to more hospitable regions. We should limit our production of CO2 because our own comfort depends on it.

 

Only if CO2 is bad stuff, does any of little i argument make a valid point.
My understanding of CO2 is its good stuff.and a tiny smidgen in the atmosphere, and most of that not human produced. What advantage is AGW seeking? It ain't saving the planet, its Political power, it's obvious.
If they were truly interested in saving the planet, the worst abusers would be their target. They ignore the bad guys. The US has done more alone than the rest of the world together to reduce emissions. AGW's target is the US, the good guy. Explain the hypocrisy?
Politics

 

Now you're talking. Absolutely.

There are only three reasons to argue for anthropogenic climate change.

1. We want to feel above the others whom we can blame and at the same time separate ourselves from the guilty masses.

2. To manipulate, through shame and guilt, to achieve a leadership roll in a movement motivated by that guilt.

Or

3. To prove that there is something that can be done by human activity to change what is being done through human activity.

Considering the enormous resistance to accepting all that guilt and responsibility for adversely changing the climate for the entire planet, for those who are, like yourself, truly interested in improving the climate for us egocentric humans, it makes more sense, at this point, to simply do what you have been doing; show what is going wrong and suggesting ways to improve it without the constant moral banner waving.

I applauds your patience, IN. While I don't feel the doom and gloom scenarios are convincing, I can see you are not wasting your time trying to convince Yob of the failings of the immoral human character.

Yobarnacle, take notice. IN has not been pushing the AGW agenda. He is, I believe, truly concerned for the health of our future. I know you are too. Especially when it comes to the World's fisheries, which are demonstrably in shambles. I really think there is some common ground to pursue here.

Let me just clarify my meaning. When I use the word 'ethics' I'm generally talking about behaviors, rules, as well as laws to guide our actions. Principles and fundamental ideals I think of as the moral foundation upon which ethical behaviors are set. So what you describe as the self-serving motives for action to clean up our planet, I would very much categorize as ethics.

-Will (Dragonfly)

 

Coral can't build a reef without CO2. Coral skeleton is made from CaCO3.
Cactus produces chalcolith in abundance. Can't do it without CO2.
CO2 is a good thing. Removing it would kill the planet.

 

Will, I think the fight is mostly about:
1) economic power
2) principle ethics vs consequentialist ethics

Many people prefer to stick to comfortable rules or principles (e.g. individualism, freedom of speech). And consequences are harder and harder to understand in our increasingly complex world (disinformation). Or people use rationalizations or are manipulated to justify greed or the inability to deal with the maddening complexity of climate change.

Otherwise I don't think anybody would really argue against repairing the accidental damage we have caused. It's a question if we can, not if we should.

I also believe you can be anthropocentrist but view nature as an integral part of humanity. Outside nature we are not truly human anymore. There is also incredibly value in all the genetic diversity and solutions evolution has created over billions of years that will be lost.

BTW the answer to the ancient Chinese riddle is of course to make turtle soup

 

The fight is about Freedom vs. Tyranny.

 

I see your point.

 

Enslaving people is not only unethical but also immoral.

 

Should We Block the Sun? Scientists Say the Time Has Come to Study It.

• Greenhouse gas emissions are not falling quickly enough to avoid dangerous levels of global warming
• The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine said that governments urgently need to know whether solar geoengineering could work and what the side effects might be
• They acknowledged that geoengineering is very risky and is not a substitute for decarbonizing
  
• They recommend spending at least $100 million to research the technology
  
• Others argue that that geoengineering research takes attention from the core problem of cutting emissions and helping vulnerable communities

The recommendation was made by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine