Our Oceans are Under Attack

Not just natural CO2 is declared a pollutant, but also Ozone is a pollutant?
Not the message I get from my nose.
I love the smell of rain washed air, after a thunderstorm.
That is smell of the ozone produced by the lightning.
Can't believe something that smells so fresh and pure, is bad for you.
And since thunderstorms occur all over the planet all the time, then isn't it silly to imagine a relative tiny bit of human produced ozone, to be a significant factor?
Weren't we worried about a hole in the ozone layer a few years back? A LACK of sufficient ozone?
I keep expecting H2O to, any day, be declared a pollutant, too.
Atmospheric water vapor is by enormous percentage, the predominant greenhouse gas, right?
Silliness.
Sea air also smells clean and good and IS healthy.
Not the smell "of the ocean" inland folks remark upon and detect nearing the beach.
Seaman call that odor "land smell", when nearing the coast.
Odor of mud flats and salt marshes, it is.

 

Found a mildly interesting site with a suggestion for a doomers symbol of an empty hourglass. Pictured below.

http://doomfordummies.blogspot.com/
"...it's an hourglass shape, because...time has run out - get it???




7 major scourges of Doom (and why their adherents squabble over the scraps rather than accomplish anything useful together whatsoever).

1. Peak Oil (rarely recognizes peak anything else, generally fixated on doomsteading)

2. Ecosystem Collapse (an ecological perspective about pollution, whole systems destruction)

3. Climate Change (yes, it's real, it's caused by humans, and it's an existential threat)

4. Overpopulation (no, the world doesn't need your offspring because you're "special")

5. Habitat Destruction (deforestation, mining, fracking, drilling, paving, etc)

6. Economic - (includes debt Ponzi schemes and inequality, social justice issues)

7. The death of the Oceans (from agricultural runoff, warming, overfishing and acidification)

Here's why none of the activists, scientists, and followers of these disparate but interconnected sources of potential doom can work together - Everyone who discovers that we are on an unstoppable trend towards global collapse becomes instantly enamored of two overpowering, egotistical (and often remunerative) convictions...first, they are sure they have defined the precise problem (which usually has to do with how they came about to notice) and second, they are sure they, and they alone, know the solution (ditto). Nobody will ever cooperate to fix the problems, because their ego won't let them. Plus ça change, as they say in France!! "

Oldest doomer propaganda I've encountered.

"When man interferes with the Tao

the sky becomes filthy,

the earth becomes depleted,

the equilibrium crumbles,

creatures become extinct.

~ Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching, 500 BCE, appx"

 

I'm unsure why brian eiland reposted THIS one. For giggles?

"I was fortunate enough to catch a program on Nat Geo, about something so serious, I got physically sick. Turns out that Glaciers melting in the Arctic and Iceland, primarily the "pups" that break off and melt, and due the the fresh water content of this melting, sink down to the bottom of the water column and begin their journey down and across to Spain, then come back across the top of South America, back up the Gulf, and eventually round the Florida Straits, and create the Gulf Stream! Can you begin to imagine what would happen to our fisheries on the East Coast of the Country if all of a sudden we lost the Engine that powers the Gulf Stream??? "

Is he (OP) SERIOUS? Freshwater SINKS in saltwater?
Guess he never looked at plimsol marks (load lines). You can load a ship DEEPER in a freshwater port, because when it arrives in saltwater, the ship RISES automatically to it's saltwater draft, because the saltwater is HEAVIER than fresh, by approx. 2lbs per cu ft.
Freshwater floats on top of saltwater and it promptly mixes in by wave action.
Fresh water RAINS on the oceans all the time, everywhere. It readily mixes with the saltwater but doesn't dilute it, because the sun keeps evaporating fresh water, leaving the salt behind.
They're worried about icepack and glaciers melting, diluting the ocean?
Inability to imagine scale of size and depths of our oceans and our atmosphere, give these folks the "vapors" for the silliest of notions.

 

Guess I did not read that one thoroughly enough before reposting it

 

Vegetarian Vs Meat Eating: Statistics on Destruction of Body & Planet Food Supply

The Hunger Argument



Number of people worldwide who will die as a result of malnutrition this year: 20 million



Number of people who could be adequately fed using land freed if Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10%: 100 million



Percentage of corn grown in the US eaten by people: 20



Percentage of corn grown in the US eaten by livestock: 80



Percentage of oats grown in the US eaten by livestock: 95



Percentage of protein wasted by cycling grain through livestock: 90



How frequently a child dies as a result of malnutrition: every 2 point 3 seconds



Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an acre: 40,000



Pounds of beef produced on an acre: 250



Percentage of US farmland devoted to beef production: 56



Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce a pound of edible flesh from feedlot beef: 16

 

Sure would be nice if you guys would take your 'vegetarian/meat eating' discussion somewhere else,....it really doesn't fit in with the theme of this forum subject :idea:

 

Oceans are under attack because of meat eaters

The meat industry is one of the most destructive ecological industries on the planet. The raising and slaughtering of pigs, cows, sheep, turkeys and chickens not only utilizes vast areas of land and vast quantities of water, but it is a greater contributor to greenhouse gas emissions than the automobile industry.

The seafood industry is literally plundering the ocean of life and some fifty percent of fish caught from the oceans is fed to cows, pigs, sheep, chickens etc in the form of fish meal. It also takes about fifty fish caught from the sea to raise one farm raised salmon.

We have turned the domestic cow into the largest marine predator on the planet. The hundreds of millions of cows grazing the land and farting methane consume more tonnage of fish than all the world's sharks, dolphins and seals combined. Domestic housecats consume more fish, especially tuna, than all the world's seals.

So why is it that all the world's large environmental and conservation groups are not campaigning against the meat industry?

 

PETA was co-founded by one of my crew-members and many of my volunteers come from the animal rights movement. But it is not accurate to refer to Sea Shepherd as animal rights when our organization pushes a strict conservation enforcement policy.

And secondly we do not promote veganism on our ships because of animal rights. We promote veganism as a means of practising what we preach which is ocean conservation.

There is not enough fish in the world's oceans to feed 6.6 billion human beings and another 10 billion domestic animals. That is why all the world's commercial fisheries are collapsing. That is why whales, seals, dolphins and seabirds are starving. The sand eel for example, the primary source of food for the comical and beautiful puffin is being wiped out by Danish fishermen solely to provide fish meal to Danish factory farmed chickens.

This is a solid conservation connection between eating meat and the destruction of life in our oceans.

 

And now tuna fish comes with a health warming saying it should not be eaten by pregnant women or small children because of high levels of mercury. Does that mean mercury is good for adults and non-pregnant women? What are they telling us here?

Eating meat and fish is not only bad for the environment it's also unhealthy. Yet even when it comes to our own health we slip into denial mode and order the whopper.

The bottom line is that to be a conservationist and an environmentalist, you must practise and promote vegetarianism or better yet veganism.

It is the lifestyle that leaves the shallowest ecological footprint, uses fewer resources and produces less greenhouse gas emissions, it's healthier and it means you're not a hypocrite.

 

Although the person that Brian quoted did get a few of his facts garbled, the concern he raised is real. This is from a National Geographic article that may be related to the TV program that person saw--

Signs From Earth: The Big Thaw | National Geographic

More information about how sea ice forms, and why diluting it with fresh water can cause changes in ocean circulation patterns.


All About Sea Ice | National Snow & Ice Data Center

Shutdown of thermohaline circulation | Wikipedia

Ocean Circulation Shut Down by Melting Glaciers After Last Ice Age | NOAA

 

South Florida City Council Votes To Secede From Florida, Citing Rising Seas | Crooks and Liars

 

Second that motion.

 

From above article:
"Of course, it probably won’t happen. In order to pass, such a resolution would have to be voted on by every Florida resident and then be approved by Congress."

Now if Miami alone was seceding or even being EVICTED, most Floridians would probably approve. And approve a frontier fence around it. Talk about the base for liars and crooks!
Look up CORRUPT POLITICIAN in the dictionary. (See Chicago, Miami)

On the topic of the Gulf Stream.
What a marvelous self regulating system.
If warming melts seaice and that slows the stream a bit, which causes cooling, sounds like a self regulating thermostat, and the seaice would promptly be back again.
After all, how much WARMING are we really talking about. Doomers tend to use lots of superlatives and quote little actual data in their warnings. Who's going to get excited by fraction of a degree C?
(1/3 degree per decade totals less than 1 degree Celsius in 25 years. And 1 degree C= 1.8 degree F)


http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/arctic_ice3.php
"Evidence of Arctic Warming


Comiso’s new study presents some striking trends. When compared to longer- term, ground-based surface temperature data, the rate of warming in the Arctic from 1981 to 2001 is eight times larger than the rate of Arctic warming over the last 100 years. (superlative not data and very little data last 100 years) There have also been some remarkable seasonal changes. Arctic spring, summer, and autumn have each warmed, lengthening the seasons when sea ice melts by 10 to 17 days per decade. Temperatures increased on average by almost one and a quarter (1.22) degrees Celsius (C) per decade over sea ice in the Arctic summer. Conversely, Arctic winters cooled from the 1980s to the 1990s. The study finds that winters were almost 1 (0.89) degree C cooler per decade.

Page 2Page 4


Graph of Arctic Temperature Trends


The summer warming and longer sea ice melt season appear to be affecting the volume and extent of perennial sea ice, the study suggests. Also, a longer melt season could in turn cause thinner sea ice at the end of winter, making it even more susceptible to early thawing. Winter cooling, on the other hand, caused sea ice to actually advance in the Bering Sea, Greenland Sea, and Baffin Bay.

The rapid warming trend in the Arctic over the last 25 years has dramatically reduced the region’s sea ice extent. Comparing this more recent trend with long-term data, scientists are trying to determine to whether this 25-year warming trend will continue, or is part of a longer-term cycle of ups and downs. (Graph by Larry Stock and Josefino Comiso, NASA GSFC)


Graph of Melt Period in Arctic Regions


Researchers observed varied temperatures across different regions within and near the Arctic Circle. Average temperature trends increased by one-third of 1 degree C per decade over sea ice, and they also rose half a degree C per decade over the lands of Eurasia. Temperatures over North America experienced the highest regional warming, increasing by 1.06 degrees C per decade. Greenland cooled by less than one-tenth of a degree C per decade. The cooling found over Greenland was mainly at high elevations, while warming trends were observed around its periphery. These results are consistent with a National Snow and Ice Data Center study that found record loss of sea ice around Greenland’s periphery in 2002.

The surface temperature records from 1981 to 2001 were based on thermal infrared data from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) onboard NOAA satellites. The AVHRR sensor detects radiation in the visible and thermal infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum. These satellite temperature data were compared with accurate ground-based data taken during the one-year-long Arctic ice station project called the Surface Heat Budget in the Arctic (SHEBA) from 1997 to 1998. Comiso found that the two datasets are extremely consistent with each other.

“This study is unique in that previously, similar studies made use of data from very few points scattered in various parts of the Arctic region,” says Comiso. “These results show the large regional and seasonal differences in the trends that only satellite data can provide.” (Remember the 8 times recent 100 years in beginning of article? What 100 years of data?)

Since satellite temperatures have only been recorded since 1981, ( only recent 33 years of accurate temperature records) and the scientists admit only scattered and minimal data for artic temperatures earlier, doesn't getting the panties in a wad, seem just a bit premature?

The argument is frequently made, we can't afford to wait until we are sure, because later, it might be TOO late.

My hackles go up with this argument.
If a car salesman hustled me that hard, I'd leave that dealership hurriedly and NEVER return!

 

Third that motion. Furthermore, Miami-Dade can take Broward and Palm Beach with them, necessitating a longer fence.

 

ROFLMAO Agree!
if I may editorialize, Hoyt, the motion Hoyt thirded, was one made by brian eiland , to take veganism elsewhere, a different, separate thread for vegans that wanted to preach vegetarian views.