where do you stand on saving our reefs??? serious questions for you to ponder on:)

[ScubaSteve]

Originally Posted by gobytron

guys, there will be no reefs at all by 2050....maybe 2100 if we're lucky.

Reefers will play almost no part in it's demise and if every one of us (not just canreef, I mean all of us) stopped this hobby today it would not change a thing.

ideals are nice, and they look great on paper or here on the 'net but the facts are the facts so keep all this nonsense up if it helps you sleep at night.

Just enjoy it while you can, in your living room or otherwise.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/ar...ort-warns.html

Just one very small example of what I mean, lots more rsearch all the time painting more and more dire pictures...

or for those of you who dont like to click links...an excerpt from www.treehugger.com
First the news was that if we don't change our habits around fishing, all the world's fisheries will be wiped out by 2050. Now, experts guess that if we don't significantly change our interaction with the ocean, coral reefs will be all but wiped out by that same time. J.E.N. Veron, former chief scientist of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, writes that human pollution of the water, as well as human-generated carbon dioxide emissions which are causing ocean acidification and rising ocean temperatures are rapidly killing off corals. He notes that without a radical change in our behaviors and priorities, we will be left with a bleak future for the oceans, and consequently, ourselves.

Ah yes, the good ol' alarmist articles. I have to ask: Have you actually read the original report that news article reports on (Reefs at Risk)? Or have you read more up to date "Reefs at Risk: Revisted? If you had, you'd know that the quotes in the news article are taken out of context. No where does the original document state that reefs will be obliterated by 2050, it only says that a greater percentage of reefs will be subjected to increased threat levels by 2050. Threats being: environmental pressures that can destabilize a reef system, not 'holy freaking crap the world is coming to an end'. And the document uses environmental models that are, in their best possible use, a shot in the dark (the atmospheric CO2 model they used has been criticized my many).

The original document is a review of current threat levels, identifies possible threats and addresses socio-economical impacts, and it should be taken as such. It is an excellent review and makes a strong argument for not f-ing up our reefs. They do provide a forecast of reef pressures but their forecasting methods are far from being robust. Here in Vancouver the average daily temperature over the month of July has gone up by 0.2C per day... so using their forecast method Vancouver, by the time next year, will be a balmy 92C. Gonna have a sweet suntan. The original document also does not account for externalities, natural weather patterns (which caused the major 1998 bleaching event that skewed their results), or take into account natural reef resilience.

Trying being less neative and try looking for positive news. Like how there there has been no significant change in the great barrier reef over 13 years or that, despite poor ocean conditions and global warming, reefs are sprinting (in geological terms) toward the poles. Heck, the last one is a result of global warming.

None of this says that we aren't causing damage to our reefs and that we shouldn't be doing things better but, in response to this...

Originally Posted by gobytron

ideals are nice, and they look great on paper or here on the 'net but the facts are the facts so keep all this nonsense up if it helps you sleep at night.

You might want to brush up on your facts before calling someone else 'nonsense' for asking some honest questions (or you can ignore them... you know, whatever helps you sleep at night). Knock off with the negative posts.


Sorry for the diatribe, Denny! Let's get back to the OP and have some good discussions!

[Zoaelite]

Very well put as always Kevin, it's amazing how the "Facts" of a scientific article can be interpreted in which ever way the reader desires.

[reefwars]

Originally Posted by zoaElite

Very well put as always Kevin, it's amazing how the "Facts" of a scientific article can be interpreted in which ever way the reader desires.

agreed 100%...eyes of the beholder

[reefwars]

Originally Posted by ScubaSteve

Sorry for the diatribe, Denny! Let's get back to the OP and have some good discussions!

hey thats the idea is to here both sides of the story and get opinions from everyone after all an opinion in a room to your self is just an opinion now speak that opinion out loud loud in a crowd then you almost always will have a discussion /debate and communication is where the learning begins