CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23565
PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 4:43 pm
 


Xort Xort:


You claim destruction of the streams they breed in, to what degree has that happened? How many viable adults could a stream or system of rivers produce? Isn't the main population limit due to preditation of young salmon in the rivers?

~

If the goal is larger fish worth more money, given the limited number of fish that can be produced each year, then surely an incressed food supply will take the current number of fish and make them larger and move valuable.


http://www.bucksuzuki.org/images/uploads/docs/Forestry_brief.pdf

http://www.coastwatchsociety.org/faq_2.htm

http://www.thinksalmon.com/learn/item/habitat_loss_threatens_salmon/

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/publications/downloads/2007/DSF-HighDry-summary-F.pdf

http://www.crd.bc.ca/watersheds/protection/wildlife-plants/salmon.htm

Next time, don't be so lazy. Increased food supply does little if the numbers go down because of loss of salmon habitat. This I've seen personally in my many years of sailing on the coast.

You get a smaller number of bigger fish...maybe. That's unproven.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21663
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:58 am
 


Coincidentally the Cohen Commission on the decline of the Fraser River sockeye stock is releasing its report in a couple of days. Hopefully it will be an interesting read.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2366
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:25 pm
 


Gunnair Gunnair:
Well lets dig in and take a look, I'm sure you have answered my question and not just wasted my time.

Let pick one at random, and the D6 says 6 so the last one.

$1:
Pacific Salmon may be Chinook, Chum, Coho, Sockeye, or Pink salmon. The Atlantic Salmon is not native to the west coast of North America, but it is commonly raised in aquaculture operations. Pacific Salmon are part of the genus Oncorhynchus, which includes also includes Cutthroat and Steelhead Trout; these species are often collectively called salmonids.
Thanks I know what a salmon is.
$1:
The salmon is among the most revered of coastal animals, for its cultural and spiritual importance to First Nations, its world-famous tasty flesh, and its role in the historical economy of BC The most common salmon in our local waters are Chum and Coho. All Pacific salmon species are anadromous, meaning they spend most of their life in the ocean but migrate to fresh water to breed. They therefore interact with several different ecosystems, and play important roles in terrestrial, freshwater and marine food webs.
Sound like I'm reading a science project, sure my answer is to follow, after all someone wouldn't be lazy and throw a bunch of link that only share a title in common with the question right?
$1:
Historically, many streams in the Victoria area supported salmon spawning runs, and numerous wetlands provided rearing habitat for juvenile salmon. As the city grew, many of these areas were lost altogether, through in-filling, paving and development. Others have become degraded, so that salmon cannot survive there anymore (see What threatens Pacific salmon, below). However, largely thanks to the restoration efforts of community stewardship groups, salmon are returning to several streams in the CRD.

How many have been lost, and to what degree have they been degraded?
$1:
Colquitz Creek flows into Portage Inlet. Between 200 and 400 wild Coho, and some dozens of wild Chum salmon, spawn in this creek each year. Although these runs are probably much smaller than in historic times, they are a rare asset for an urban stream, particularly because the stocks are not enhanced with hatchery fish.
200 to 400 and some 12s of chum... no hatcher help... Ok that doesn't answer my question.
$1:
Craigflower Creek also flows into Portage Inlet. Most of the salmon in Craigflower Creek were wiped out in the 1970s, due to in-stream barriers caused by road construction and other development. In the 1980s, some parts of the stream were restored, and juvenile Coho were transplanted from Goldstream River. Recently, restocking has ceased, and the returning populations seem to be stable. The protected habitat in Portage Inlet and the Gorge Waterway, including extensive eelgrass beds, is crucial to the survival of juvenile salmon.

How many parts is some parts? What level did the populations stablize at?
$1:
Millstream Creek flows into Esquimalt Harbour. This stream may have supported limited salmon runs in the past, despite natural in-stream barriers (e.g. waterfalls) that probably limited the numbers. Changes to the water flows of the stream due to extensive impervious surfaces has made these barriers virtually insurmountable. Some restoration work has been done to create “fishways” that bypass the barriers, and Coho salmon have returned. The spawning population is approximately 150 and is not currently restocked.

Colwood Creek, Bee Creek and Selleck Creek flow into Esquimalt Lagoon. These creeks also probably supported salmon spawning in the past, but only Colwood Creek still does today, with very small numbers of fish. The excellent nearshore habitat in Esquimalt Lagoon make these creeks good candidates for restoration work.
Sure.. uh how many rivers and creeks does BC, Washington, Alaska have that have salmon in them? Thousands?

$1:
Salmon lay their eggs in the gravel beds of fresh water streams. The female scoops out a nest or “redd” with her tail by turning on her side and fanning vigorously. The eggs are immediately fertilized with sperm by a male waiting nearby. The female then covers the eggs with gravel, and both adults shortly die. By spring, the eggs develop into alevins, tiny larvae that are nourished from a yolk sack attached to their bellies. They live in the gravel until the yolk is consumed, and then emerge as 2.5 to 5 cm fry. Fry feed mostly on aquatic insects.

Chum and Pink fry immediately head out to the sea, whereas Coho, Chinook and Sockeye may stay in the stream for up to two years. When the salmon head to the sea, they are called smolts, and undergo physiological changes that allow them to tolerate salt water. Estuaries at the river’s mouth provide a transition zone to the open ocean. Here, the smolts can acclimate to the salt water, and feed on plentiful small fish and invertebrates in a sheltered environment.

Once in the ocean, salmon may migrate long distances to feeding grounds, or they may stay in local areas as do some Chinook in the Georgia Strait and Puget Sound. Most salmon return to the same stream where they were hatched. Coho spawn when they are three years old, and Chum when they are 3 or 4. The differences in life histories between species are summarized in the table below.
Ok... this answers none of my questions.
$1:
For breeding and rearing, salmon need healthy freshwater streams characterized by: clear water; abundant oxygen; plenty of shade from streamside vegetation; hiding spaces (e.g. overhanging banks and fallen logs); clean gravel; sufficient nutrients; and healthy insect populations. Stream flow is also crucial: insufficient flow can strand smolts and cause increased competition, while excessive flow can wash juvenile fish out to sea prematurely, and destroy important channel characteristics.

Healthy streamside vegetation (including reeds, sedges, willows, shrubs and trees) helps to soak up water and protect stream banks from erosion in times of high flow. Streamside vegetation also provides nutrients and habitat for the insects that juvenile salmon prey upon. Large woody debris such as fallen trees helps to create pools and sheltered areas for spawning adults and juvenile salmon to rest and hide from predators.

Estuaries are also important habitats for juvenile salmon. Chum in particular are known to spend up to a month in estuaries.

In the ocean, salmon feed on fish, squid and crustaceans. They generally feed in areas along the coast of Alaska, B.C. and California where south-flowing currents create “upwelling” of cold water and nutrients from deep in the ocean. Plankton feed upon these nutrients and form the foundation of the food web. Upwelling can be affected by El Niño and other climate fluctuations.
Again no data, just a summery of stuff I already know.
$1:
Pacific salmon played a pivotal role in the culture and sustenance of Coast Salish people in this area. Salmon were were caught with a variety of techniques, and eaten fresh or smoked.

After the city of Victoria was established as a Hudson’s Bay fort in 1843, European arrivals also fished salmon, for sustenance, sport and commercial purposes. Many people, including First Nations, sports and commercial fishers, continue to harvest salmon today. However, salmon stocks have substantially declined from historic levels, and fisheries are consequently more strictly controlled. In salmon aquaculture, Atlantic salmon is the species most commonly farmed, usually in net-cages open to the ocean.

The largest fishing industry in terms of contribution to BC’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the sports fishery. Overall, fishing industries (including commercial, sports, aquaculture and fish processing) comprise about 0.5 percent of the total GDP of the province, and generate 20,000 jobs (one percent of total jobs).

Salmon continue to form a part of the image of coastal life in BC and draw tourists from around the world. Salmon figures strongly in First Nations and other local art, and graces the tables of local gourmet restaurants.
I don't give an ass about the history, I want data for today.

$1:
Salmon are food for many predators (including humans), as well as for scavengers and decomposers. Some examples of the many animals that feed on salmon in various ecosystems include:
■In the ocean, sharks and other fish, seals, sea lions, dolphins and Orcas, sport and commercial fishers
■ In the estuary, river otters, sea lions, bears, and birds
■ In freshwater (as spawning adults), bears, raccoons, eagles, sport and First Nations fishers
■In freshwater (as dead adults), ravens, gulls, coyotes, trout and juvenile salmon, insects
■In freshwater (as eggs, fry and alevin), ducks, wading birds, gulls

The decaying carcasses are also important nutrient sources for vegetation. For example, when bears feed on spawning salmon and bring them into the forest to eat, the decaying left-overs provide important fertilizer for the trees. In the course of their lives, salmon therefore transport nutrients derived from deep ocean upwelling all the way to inland forests. It is these kinds of connections to many ecosystems that makes the salmon a “keystone species.”
Nice, how many are eaten?

$1:
Loss of spawning and rearing habitat is a major factor in the decline of local salmon stocks. This occurs when wetlands and estuaries are filled in for construction of buildings and roads, and when streams are placed in culverts and otherwise modified.

Removal of streamside vegetation is a common consequence of development and has a number of effects
■banks become more prone to erosion, which can cause excessive sediment to cover gravel spawning beds and clog fish gills
■water temperatures rises due to a lack of shade
■ less decaying vegetation is available to nourish salmon prey

Another form of habitat loss results from shoreline or stream bank armouring, for example with seawalls or large rocks. Degraded water quality in streams and harbours results from pollutants such as oils and gasoline from roads and boats, household wastes disposed of in storm drains, lawn/garden fertilizers and pesticides, and industrial chemicals. Some of these pollutants are directly toxic to salmon, while others have indirect effects; for example, fertilizers cause excessive algae growth that robs the water of oxygen.

Excessive water flows result when large areas of the watershed are paved. Instead of slowly soaking into the ground and filtering through soil and roots, rainwater can then rush straight into the streams with a great amount of force. This can contribute to erosion, and destroy stream features that previously provided shelter for young fish.


Thanks for the Wiki breifing on Salmon.

And thanks for wasting my time with your pointless link.

Gunnair, if any of your links actualy answer my question please quote the section and link it for me. Talk about lazy, heres some links I didn't bother to read.

$1:
Increased food supply does little if the numbers go down because of loss of salmon habitat. This I've seen personally in my many years of sailing on the coast.
So you claim that habitat is currently being destroyed rather than as in your last link suggested, restored.

I will take research over the opinions of some dude that putters around the coast.
$1:
You get a smaller number of bigger fish...maybe. That's unproven.
The iron seeding does nothing to reduce the habitat so you can't claim smaller numbers of fish.

How about you just outline the negitives you feel might come from this iron seeding. So far the only negitive is a suggestion of a low oxygen zone, which wasn't expressed in detail about what level of bloom would cause this, or how this bloom relates to natural ones and what amount of low oxygen zones are created via natural processes.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21663
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:46 pm
 


Xort Xort:
Well lets dig in and take a look, I'm sure you have answered my question and not just wasted my time.


What an incredibly arrogant response. Why should anyone "answer your questions," Xort? If you choose to be ignorant on a subject, that's up to you. When people do do the research for you, as in this case, you simply dismiss hundreds of pages of science with snippy one-liners. Perhaps you think this makes you look intelligent? I don't know. From my point of view it makes you look ignorant.

$1:
How about you just outline the negitives you feel might come from this iron seeding. So far the only negitive is a suggestion of a low oxygen zone, which wasn't expressed in detail about what level of bloom would cause this, or how this bloom relates to natural ones and what amount of low oxygen zones are created via natural processes.


So, after providing you documentation, which you dismiss out of hand, Gunny is now go supposed to look up the various negative effects of algal blooms? How about you get off your lazy ass and find out for yourself.

I love "so far the only negative is a suggestion of a low-oxygen zone." Oh, is that all? No oxygen? How's that a problem? :lol:


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2366
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:56 pm
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
What an incredibly arrogant response. Why should anyone "answer your questions," Xort?
I don't know being directly answered with links you would expect to be an answer to your question.

$1:
If you choose to be ignorant on a subject, that's up to you.
I'm not ignorant on the subject, I'm asking questions to show the ignorance of data on the other side. When someone makes the implication that habitat destruction is incressing and is causing an incress negitive relation on the salmon population, I would expect them to back it up with something more than, "Well I was on a boat and I think this is true".

$1:
When people do do the research for you, as in this case, you simply dismiss hundreds of pages of science with snippy one-liners.
I randomly selected three links and read each end to end, it answered nothing. Why should I waste my time with other the other two? I didn't bother with the point by point quoting of the other two links I read beacuse I made my point with the first one.

I will guess that he likely did a search on salmon and habitat and then linked what he found. None of which answers any of my question. When I ask to what degree has the habitat been reduced, I don't want 5 links telling me about how salmon need gravel in streams to breed, I know that.

I already knew what he posted was likely unread by him and would answer none of my questions, not my first time in a forum. If he had anything he would be quoting it. No direct quotes means no actual usefull information in the links. But I like to read if their is a chance of learning something, however this was devoid of anything but the most basic of information, and a lot of crying by the DSF.
$1:
Perhaps you think this makes you look intelligent? I don't know. From my point of view it makes you look ignorant.
I'm ignorant because I'm dismissing stuff I already know, that is not answering my question? What are you using for logic to come to that conclusion?

I quoted on link in it's compleatness and it had nothing to do with what I was asking.

$1:
So, after providing you documentation,
Please quote me where it answers any of my question in any of the links.

Otherwise my dismissing is valid.

$1:
which you dismiss out of hand, Gunny is now go supposed to look up the various negative effects of algal blooms? How about you get off your lazy ass and find out for yourself.
I know the negitive effects, I have quoted the negitive effects.

How about a positive, like how fter a volcano blew in the Aleutian Islands in 2008 caused a bloom and then the salmon numbers skyrocketed?

I guess those things are unrelated, after all you can't stop people from using the enviroment to better human life if we can incress the fish numbers by dumping iron in the ocean. Can't stop people from building near a river if we can undo the harm by incressing the food supply on the cheap. Can't motivate people to give you money to advance your political beliefs if the harm can be addressed directly.

But you can hide behind it's not good science becuase we didn't control for this or that. Fair enough you can't retest a volcano short of a real Bond Level Villian. But we can ask some questions like what caused a short term spike? Some peopel claim the only factor is breeding grounds. Ok then what happened between 2004 and 2008 and caused the spike in 2008, and how did it go away leading to a return to 'normal levels' in 2009?

Seems like the breeding grounds are the only factor theory of the guy on the boat might not be sea worthy. To twist a metaphor.
$1:
I love "so far the only negative is a suggestion of a low-oxygen zone." Oh, is that all? No oxygen? How's that a problem? :lol:
No one said no oxygen. You can't even make a sarcastic quote properly.

The proper question is to what degree would it be reduced, over what area and depth, as well as what negitive impact it might have. Not just OMG LOW OXYGEN! It's about degrees of change and exposure or the level of projected risk. The low oxygen might just be low, and not harmful. Or it could be the next best thing to sucking void for what good it does you. No oxygen like you made up would be very bad, but that's right out the far end of what is possible.
~
No evidence that this seeding created the oxygen issue, or to be honest that it didn't that I can find at this time. So we can place low oxygen as a risk, like the people being quoted in the news are saying. What they are also not saying is just how much iron seeding would be needed to cause a bloom that would very likely cause a low oxygen zone, dishonestly by omission you would call it if you were a mean sort of person.

Maybe next year they can try again if the waters are again iron depleated and see what happens. Not what I would call great science but it works in a round about way. Another less than scientific test will be what the fishermen report when it comes to the number and size of the fish, and in a year or so if the fish counters see any change in the number of spawning fish.

Again I say dump more, if things take off great. If they don't well it was worth a try. I doubt they could dump enough iron to kill off all the life in the ocean, or even do any real harm. After all if a volcano dumping millions of tons of stuff can't do it I doubt a small scale few hundred ton operation could.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21663
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:25 am
 


Xort Xort:
I'm not ignorant on the subject, I'm asking questions to show the ignorance of data on the other side.


Yes you are. You just don't realize it. That's why you keep asking other posters questions to go get answers for you, which you then dismiss anyway. That's the definition of ignorance. Read the Cohen Commission report when it comes out tomorrow. Look up eutrophication.

$1:
Maybe next year they can try again if the waters are again iron depleated and see what happens.


The problem here is that it isn't their water they're dumping into. It doesn't belong to them. I might have a new fertilizer I'd like to try out, but if I went and dumped it on my neighbour's lawn to test it, he might get irate, regardless of the efficacy of the product. That's the part you seem to be missing.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2366
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:51 pm
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Yes you are. You just don't realize it. That's why you keep asking other posters questions to go get answers for you, which you then dismiss anyway.
I think I know my own motivations a lot better than you do.

What answers did any of his links provide to any of my questions? I already asked you to quote any section that answered any of my questions.

But what you keep saying is 'No you are ignorant'.



$1:
That's the definition of ignorance. Read the Cohen Commission report when it comes out tomorrow. Look up eutrophication.
Do you have a point or should I just make one up and deside that is what you are trying to say?

$1:
The problem here is that it isn't their water they're dumping into. It doesn't belong to them.
But it's not in violation of any treaty, of the two cited, neither bans this use of iron. One in non binding and doesn't ban the use of iron seeding just says it's not a good idea, and the other only applies if the material being dumped was dumped as waste, which in this case it's clearly not.

$1:
I might have a new fertilizer I'd like to try out, but if I went and dumped it on my neighbour's lawn to test it, he might get irate, regardless of the efficacy of the product. That's the part you seem to be missing.

So your argument is now, because they don't have ownership they can't do anything to improve their derived economic intrests. Keep moving those goal posts.

Also I will note how you ignore all my other points and replies to your comments. I take it you agree with me on all the other points I addressed?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21663
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:53 pm
 


Xort Xort:
I think I know my own motivations a lot better than you do.

What answers did any of his links provide to any of my questions? I already asked you to quote any section that answered any of my questions.

But what you keep saying is 'No you are ignorant'.


I'm not here to answer your questions, Xort. Besides, you seem to have all the answers already.


$1:
But it's not in violation of any treaty, of the two cited, neither bans this use of iron. One in non binding and doesn't ban the use of iron seeding just says it's not a good idea, and the other only applies if the material being dumped was dumped as waste, which in this case it's clearly not.

According to Minister of Environment Peter Kent, this is an "apparent violation" of Canadian law and there is an investigation underway. The Convention on Biological Diversity recommends that this type of geoengineering be banned unless
it is for legitimate scientific purpose, which doesn't seem to be the case here.

I don't think this dumping is going to do much harm. Then again, stealing a bag of chips from Walmart isn't going to dent their bottom line significantly. That doesn't mean that Walmart should make it a policy that it's OK to shoplift from them. Similarly, just because this experiment may not have done much harm, doesn't mean Canada should open the door to allow indiscriminate dumping into fish-bearing waters.


$1:
So your argument is now, because they don't have ownership they can't do anything to improve their derived economic intrests. Keep moving those goal posts.

Also I will note how you ignore all my other points and replies to your comments. I take it you agree with me on all the other points I addressed?


Actually my original "goal post" was wondering why you supported CO2 sequestration, given that you've stated elsewhere you didn't see CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere as an issue. Never did figure that one out.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2366
PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 3:04 pm
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
I'm not here to answer your questions, Xort. Besides, you seem to have all the answers already.
Then we are in agreement that iron seeding and more to the point this iron seeding isn't likely at all to do any actual harm, that what was done was legal, and more than likely it will be a net benefit?

$1:
According to Minister of Environment Peter Kent, this is an "apparent violation" of Canadian law and there is an investigation underway.
Did he say what law or subsection of an act it was apparent to be in violation of? I haven't kept up on the political legal aspect of this event very well.

$1:
The Convention on Biological Diversity recommends that this type of geoengineering be banned unless it is for legitimate scientific purpose, which doesn't seem to be the case here.
And the UN suggests that Canada is terrible for children, and suggests a bunch of crazy BS. Doesn't mean we should listen, or will.
$1:
I don't think this dumping is going to do much harm. Then again, stealing a bag of chips from Walmart isn't going to dent their bottom line significantly. That doesn't mean that Walmart should make it a policy that it's OK to shoplift from them. Similarly, just because this experiment may not have done much harm, doesn't mean Canada should open the door to allow indiscriminate dumping into fish-bearing waters.
Nice way to phrase it, much like your statement about dumping stuff on someone else's property.

First it's not anything at all like stealing something from Wal*Mart. It's more like picking up some garbage around a Wal*Mart, and it's not like dumping something on someone else's property it's like planting a tree on crown land.

$1:
Actually my original "goal post" was wondering why you supported CO2 sequestration, given that you've stated elsewhere you didn't see CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere as an issue. Never did figure that one out.

You did get my answer right? So that people making a fuss about CO2 will shut up about it and move on to the next silly thing they can get behind and make a lot of noise about.

As for the ohen Commission’s report, was their anything you expected me to find in it when you suggested I read it? Anything you would like to point out as being most important?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21663
PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 3:29 pm
 


Xort Xort:
Then we are in agreement that iron seeding and more to the point this iron seeding isn't likely at all to do any actual harm, that what was done was legal, and more than likely it will be a net benefit?


This event is unlikely to do much harm. I'd agree with that.


$1:
Did he say what law or subsection of an act it was apparent to be in violation of? I haven't kept up on the political legal aspect of this event very well.


Again, Xort, I am not here to do your research for you. That information is readily available.

$1:
Nice way to phrase it, much like your statement about dumping stuff on someone else's property.

First it's not anything at all like stealing something from Wal*Mart. It's more like picking up some garbage around a Wal*Mart, and it's not like dumping something on someone else's property it's like planting a tree on crown land.


The problem here is your inability to appreciate that things are simply not simply "good" or "bad" for the environment. If you poor some nutrients into waters you may see some life forms increase in population--like salmon for example. If you poor in some more, then other life forms will prosper--jellyfish perhaps. It's a complex ecosystem; it's not a simplt matter of "the more of this we dump, the better it will be for the environment."

Which is why I say this incident will not likely have much effect, but encouragibng for-profit dumping of nutrients will likely have long term effects that are not all beneicial to users of the ocean.

This was demonstrated in the Great Lakes in the 50s and 60s wiht the eutrophication due to phosphates. Perhaps the detergent companies made similar arguments; that they were , in essence, "planting trees", giving back to the environment. Given the large numbers of native aquatic species killed off in Lake Erie due to large algae blooms, I think a reasonable person would be skeptical of this claim.



$1:
You did get my answer right? So that people making a fuss about CO2 will shut up about it and move on to the next silly thing they can get behind and make a lot of noise about.


I guess I did get that, yes. Why would you spend hundreds of millions of dollars to do that when, by your own admission, they'd simply move on to something else equally as silly, in your books. It's simply not a logical position.

$1:
As for the ohen Commission’s report, was their anything you expected me to find in it when you suggested I read it? Anything you would like to point out as being most important?


Again, I'm not here to do your research for you. Just a better awareness of the complexity of salmon stocks.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2366
PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 5:58 pm
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Again, Xort, I am not here to do your research for you. That information is readily available.
Do you know yes or no?

I'm guessing he didn't say anything with detail because then that would force his hand so to speak.

$1:
The problem here is your inability to appreciate that things are simply not simply "good" or "bad" for the environment.
Net good or net bad.

$1:
If you poor some nutrients into waters you may see some life forms increase in population--like salmon for example. If you poor in some more, then other life forms will prosper--jellyfish perhaps. It's a complex ecosystem; it's not a simplt matter of "the more of this we dump, the better it will be for the environment."
I think that an upper limit which has a positive net outcome is accepted as being part of the deal. Once an area has a reasonable amount of iron adding more doesn't do much, the core of the idea is to address zones that are lacking in iron but are otherwise sufficently supplied with stuff.
$1:
Which is why I say this incident will not likely have much effect, but encouragibng for-profit dumping of nutrients will likely have long term effects that are not all beneicial to users of the ocean.
Care to outline why it will likely have long term negitives? People on the pro list things like a greater food supply, litteraly more energy converted into a useful form for that ecosystem to use. A reduction of CO2 which is often stated as the cause of climate change which is suggested to be the most important negitive factor in just about all world wide ecosystems.
$1:
This was demonstrated in the Great Lakes in the 50s and 60s wiht the eutrophication due to phosphates. Perhaps the detergent companies made similar arguments; that they were , in essence, "planting trees", giving back to the environment. Given the large numbers of native aquatic species killed off in Lake Erie due to large algae blooms, I think a reasonable person would be skeptical of this claim.
I take it you are aware of the differance of scale, and the differance of the added material right? Also that unlike the run off seeding can be stopped very much on command.
$1:
I guess I did get that, yes. Why would you spend hundreds of millions of dollars to do that when, by your own admission, they'd simply move on to something else equally as silly, in your books. It's simply not a logical position.
I also answered that, because it is far cheaper than anything else being suggested and in many cases implimented. Germany could pay for the whole global project and still save money if they went back to coal and gas thermal electric power generation and stopped screwing around with wind power. To say nothing of gun to the head plan to shut down it's nuclear power generation.

I would need to check the numbers but I think BC's carbon tax would cover a global project, and if that came out low then a similar application not charged to just a few million more would.

This solution to CO2 actualy has desired side effects, like incressing food for ocean ecosystems.

$1:
Again, I'm not here to do your research for you. Just a better awareness of the complexity of salmon stocks.

I'm not asking you to do my research, I'm asking if their is anything special you think I should pay more attention to. The report isn't shocking news filled with new information, it's basicly a whole bunch of the same stuff people have been saying for a while.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21663
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:34 am
 


$1:
I think that an upper limit which has a positive net outcome is accepted as being part of the deal. Once an area has a reasonable amount of iron adding more doesn't do much, the core of the idea is to address zones that are lacking in iron but are otherwise sufficently supplied with stuff.
$1:

Different areas and depths of the water have differing nutrient concentrations. How do you decide what "sufficiently supplied" is? Is there a nutrient deficiency in the waters tested? Whay? What caused it? Or is the current nutrient level that just the way the ecosystem developed in that area?

$1:
Care to outline why it will likely have long term negitives?


In economics it is known as the Tragedy of the Commons.

$1:
I take it you are aware of the differance of scale, and the differance of the added material right? Also that unlike the run off seeding can be stopped very much on command.


How can it be stopped on command? According to you, it's perfectly legal. If it's a profit-generating endeavour, then people will certain expolit that opportunity. How would you stop it?

One way would be to agree with other countries that ocean fertilization may have positive benefits but, since we don't know all that much about it, it's use should be restricted for now to legitimate scientific reserach ... Oh wait! That's already the policy in place. :lol:


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2366
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:04 pm
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
How can it be stopped on command? According to you, it's perfectly legal. If it's a profit-generating endeavour, then people will certain expolit that opportunity. How would you stop it?
By turning off the machine the pulls the iron out of the hold and dumps it? It's nothing at all like having many different users with semi-controled and uncontroled run off into a river system. No real time delays or weather considerations to try and account for. Want to stop iron seeding? Just stop.
$1:
One way would be to agree with other countries that ocean fertilization may have positive benefits but, since we don't know all that much about it, it's use should be restricted for now to legitimate scientific reserach... Oh wait! That's already the policy in place. :lol:


Great point other than it being wrong.

You might want to do some research into the treaties that deal with this. Currently it's not restricted to scienctific research, on two levels. First it doen't ban non research seeding, second it's not a binding treaty. Not that something like a science only treaty will stop anyone. See Japanese research into whaling as an example.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21663
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:30 pm
 


Xort Xort:
By turning off the machine the pulls the iron out of the hold and dumps it? It's nothing at all like having many different users with semi-controled and uncontroled run off into a river system. No real time delays or weather considerations to try and account for. Want to stop iron seeding? Just stop.


If it's a profit-generating venture, why would people "just stop"?. They're making money and--according to you--it's perfectly legal.


$1:

Great point other than it being wrong.

You might want to do some research into the treaties that deal with this. Currently it's not restricted to scienctific research, on two levels. First it doen't ban non research seeding, second it's not a binding treaty. Not that something like a science only treaty will stop anyone. See Japanese research into whaling as an example.


Actually I'm not wrong. Once again, your failure to do any research has led you into trouble. First off, I didn't say it was a binding treaty--I said it was an agreement. Secondly, it specifically notes that large scale ocean seeding should not take place until adequate studies have taken place, and that those studies should be authorized for the purpose of research and should not be used for generating or selling carbon offsets.


UN Convention on Biodiversity, Decision IX, 16, Biodiversity and Climate Change

$1:
C. Ocean Fertilization
The Conference of the Parties,

Notes the work of the London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (1972) and the 1996 London Protocol, welcomes the decision of the twenty-ninth Consultative Meeting of the Contracting Parties held from 5 to 9 November 2007, which: (i) endorsed the June 2007 "Statement of Concern regarding iron fertilization of the oceans to sequester CO2" of their Scientific Groups, (ii) urged States to use the utmost caution when considering proposals for large-scale ocean fertilization operations and (iii) took the view that, given the present state of knowledge regarding ocean fertilization, large-scale operations were currently not justified:

1. Requests the Executive Secretary to bring the issue of ocean fertilization to the attention of the Joint Liaison Group;

2. Urges Parties and other Governments to act in accordance with the decision of the London Convention;

3. Recognizes the current absence of reliable data covering all relevant aspects of ocean fertilization, without which there is an inadequate basis on which to assess their potential risks;

4. Bearing in mind the ongoing scientific and legal analysis occurring under the auspices of the London Convention (1972) and the 1996 London Protocol, requests Parties and urges other Governments, in accordance with the precautionary approach, to ensure that ocean fertilization activities do not take place until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities, including assessing associated risks, and a global, transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanism is in place for these activities; with the exception of small scale scientific research studies within coastal waters. Such studies should only be authorized if justified by the need to gather specific scientific data, and should also be subject to a thorough prior assessment of the potential impacts of the research studies on the marine environment, and be strictly controlled, and not be used for generating and selling carbon offsets or any other commercial purposes;


Sorry, Xort, you're just running around in ever-tightening circles on this one.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23565
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:36 pm
 


Man, the Eureka flashbacks just keeping coming! :lol:


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.