kevinpratt823
Non-member
The "truth" is always subject to revision.
Ocean Coral Reefs Gone by 2100? Is this article true?
- Thread starter Celticreefer
- Start date
stingythingy45
Well-Known Member
World ends at 3 pm........film at 11:00.
Sherri
Non-member
Maybe there's a little bit of truth in all of it. It's natural, boosted by the increased co2, the ocean creatures will adapt, morph, die ... just like everyone else. I read a story -- can't remember where, about an increase in a particular algae that lives on co2 ... mother earth adapts. But as avatar pointed out 
we need to take better care of our mother. Human beings are filthy.
we need to take better care of our mother. Human beings are filthy.
kevinpratt823
Non-member
I wonder how this would effect the mariculture facilities, they rely on the same ecosytem.
I think you are confusing analysis of meteorological markers on the environment, i.e. sediment types in the earth's crust, size of water rings on a tree cross-section, gas components of an Ice core, etc, with actual data, i.e. recorded at the time of the event.
The latter is fact based, the former is based upon deduction and hypotheses.
Regardless, all meteorological and oceanographic study is far from perfect science. Often, the only way to know for sure what is going to occur is to wait and observe. Of course, this is what makes it so intriguing as well.
Last edited:
hahahaha
to all skeptics: lets seeeriously consider the volume of GHG's that we as a nation put into the atmosphere. never mind the world.
fortunately congress is working on a bill that will lower our nations GHG's by 17% when compared to #'s of 2005. Our way of saying, Sorry we bailed on Earth when the Kyoto Protocol came along...But we are planting the seed so that the nation can follow the governments green movement.
I mean...it takes 16 oz of oil to produce an empty 24oz plastic soda/water bottle! And those bottle cant be make into...new bottles. Sorry to rant, but our global way of life needs to change...i know the Maldives are...seeing as they will be under water in 15 years.
to all skeptics: lets seeeriously consider the volume of GHG's that we as a nation put into the atmosphere. never mind the world.
fortunately congress is working on a bill that will lower our nations GHG's by 17% when compared to #'s of 2005. Our way of saying, Sorry we bailed on Earth when the Kyoto Protocol came along...But we are planting the seed so that the nation can follow the governments green movement.
I mean...it takes 16 oz of oil to produce an empty 24oz plastic soda/water bottle! And those bottle cant be make into...new bottles. Sorry to rant, but our global way of life needs to change...i know the Maldives are...seeing as they will be under water in 15 years.
Note the time it takes for the human population to double keeps getting shorter. The leveling off of the growth rate is maybe an indication that we've reached a saturation point?
I really believe this to be the root of our problems. I also believe that the earth will likely survive us, meaning that we will likely go extinct at some point.
200m to 450m = 1500 ys.
450m to 1b = 300 ys.
1b to 2b = 125 ys.
2b to 4b = 50 ys.
4b to 8b = 50ys
I would be surprised if we could sustain growth like this. Nature will likely find a way to control us. Celestial impacts seem to work well.
I really believe this to be the root of our problems. I also believe that the earth will likely survive us, meaning that we will likely go extinct at some point.
200m to 450m = 1500 ys.
450m to 1b = 300 ys.
1b to 2b = 125 ys.
2b to 4b = 50 ys.
4b to 8b = 50ys
I would be surprised if we could sustain growth like this. Nature will likely find a way to control us. Celestial impacts seem to work well.
Last edited:
fanaglethebagle
Not-so-old Sea Dog
In a population rate equation, human technology and intelligence has made our K value a variable rather than a constant, leaving us without a saturation point.
Greg Hiller
BRS Moderator
This question was asked a while back:
>I wonder how this would effect the mariculture facilities, they rely on the same ecosytem. <
I think this depends a lot. If the facility uses large tanks Near the ocean and uses natural sunlight it ought to be okay. The reason for this is that you can artificially significantly increase the carbonate hardness (alkalinity) of a closed (or reasonable closed) system just by the addition of sodium bicarbonate, or by using a large calcium reactor. So, the pH of the system will be lower than it historically was (think 50-100 years back) because the water will be in equilibrium, or near equilibrium with the earth's atmosphere that now will have higher levels of CO2. Due the the artificially increased alkalinity (from the calcium reactor or additions of sodium bicarbonate), the saturation constant will remain high enough for corals to continue to lay down calcium carbonate skeleton. Just like in our tanks.
The big problem is you cannot do this on a large scale for the ocean itself.
>I wonder how this would effect the mariculture facilities, they rely on the same ecosytem. <
I think this depends a lot. If the facility uses large tanks Near the ocean and uses natural sunlight it ought to be okay. The reason for this is that you can artificially significantly increase the carbonate hardness (alkalinity) of a closed (or reasonable closed) system just by the addition of sodium bicarbonate, or by using a large calcium reactor. So, the pH of the system will be lower than it historically was (think 50-100 years back) because the water will be in equilibrium, or near equilibrium with the earth's atmosphere that now will have higher levels of CO2. Due the the artificially increased alkalinity (from the calcium reactor or additions of sodium bicarbonate), the saturation constant will remain high enough for corals to continue to lay down calcium carbonate skeleton. Just like in our tanks.
The big problem is you cannot do this on a large scale for the ocean itself.
