![]() |
![]() |
#81 | ||
Kraken King
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Under the sea
Posts: 2,714
|
Quote:
Quote:
But the thing is, they'd have to become trapped in the ice (unlikely), and ice is very destructive as a preservative, especially on soft-bodied animals. ![]()
__________________
One of my top ten favorite movies. "You ever try to flick a fly? "No." "It's a waste of time." "Can you see it?" "No." "It's right there!" "Where? "There!" "What is it?" "A crab." "A crab? I dont see any crab." "How?! It's right there!!" "Where?" "There!!!!" "Oh." -Excerpts from A Tale of Two Morons |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#82 | |||
Entmoot Minister of Foreign Affairs
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 2,145
|
Quote:
Quote:
The ice would of course not be very preservative to that kind of tissue! ![]() I came across this article in Science Centric, about phytoplankton and its role in consuming and tying down CO2 in the oceans. F.ex., when the plankton dies it "sinks to the bottom of the ocean locking away some of the carbon it has absorbed from the atmosphere." In the article though, http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/a...-global-impact, there's a real twist of irony. Since scientists have discovered this ability by phytoplankton they also want to test the possibility of increasing the number of phytoplankton in the sea as a measure of tying more CO2 into the bottom of the ocean. Okay, but here's what happened: Quote:
__________________
"Well, thief! I smell you and I feel your air. I hear your breath. Come along! Help yourself again, there is plenty and to spare." Last edited by Coffeehouse : 02-19-2009 at 05:26 PM. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#83 |
Word Santa Claus
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,922
|
inked - hex and hept (ie heptathlon) are Greek, and sex- and sept- Latin. It's not being censored for the word sex.
![]() When I said vestigial limbs I meant structures analogous to the limb but not visible on pictures like the ones we were shown - for example, they could be contained entirely within the body of the pseudoctopus.
__________________
Sufficient to have stood, yet free to fall. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#84 | |
The Chocoholic Sea Elf Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: N?n in Eilph (Belgium)
Posts: 14,363
|
Quote:
Making changes in natural cycles before their current state is entirely understood is terribly risky. There are always consequences. Plankton is the very base of the ocean's food cycle, much depends on it. If you dump the iron in the wrong place, or too much of it, and disrupt the cycle, you may end up causing tremendous damage. Especially so close to Antarctica. The oceans are already under a lot of stress as it is. So I don't think it is unwise to halt such experiments until it is certain the scale and method of the project is properly understood and agreed on. Science shouldn't be rushed, it gets sloppy otherwise. There are rules to follow and this research should be subject to them, just as any other research. According to the BBC, the project has gone ahead nevertheless.
__________________
We are not things. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#85 | |
Entmoot Minister of Foreign Affairs
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 2,145
|
Quote:
But this is not that sort of project, and that's the point I'm alluding to. I think these activists should think twice if they believe they are are alone in having environmental concerns about any large-scale fertilization. In fact, the research group that is undertaking the project seems to have engaged in a good deal of debate prior and during the on-going research, which you would of course expect professional scientists to do. I just think some of these activist organization are rather quick to jump on the red-alert button, just like they are prone to chasing the red herring stories wherein they focus on the eye-catching, headline-making problems instead of more complex, but equally important issues. One that immediately springs to mind is the completely lopsided attention that whale hunting of the minke whales get. But I'm digressing ![]() The research experiment is commented on in an article in the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, where they write: "Proponents of iron addition do acknowledge the possibility of environmental ill-effects. Still, no such effects have been detected during the past 12 experiments, probably because the experiments were small—around a ton of iron added over a few hundred square kilometers of ocean. By incrementally scaling up, they believe they can detect and avoid environmental problems." **Edit** Here's the link as well: http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=34167 They way forward they seem to be choosing looks to be both constructive and full of the right safe-guards.
__________________
"Well, thief! I smell you and I feel your air. I hear your breath. Come along! Help yourself again, there is plenty and to spare." Last edited by Coffeehouse : 02-19-2009 at 08:54 PM. Reason: Adding link |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#86 |
The Chocoholic Sea Elf Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: N?n in Eilph (Belgium)
Posts: 14,363
|
Hm, six whole tonnes of iron-sulphate and an area of 300 km² is not exactly what I call small-scale. While six tonnes spread over 300 km² may be acceptable in concentration, it still remains a very large affected area.
The fact there is a international convention that forbids such fertilisation is also not something that I think can be cast aside, simply because the research could be beneficial to the climate change problem. As I said, there are rules to follow. It's IMO better to be too quick to 'jump on the red-alert button' than wait until it's too late to stop what looks like a too risky experiment. You can always start the experiment later when people's concerns are put to rest, but you can't undo it later if it does prove harmful.
__________________
We are not things. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#87 | |||||||
Entmoot Minister of Foreign Affairs
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 2,145
|
Pardon the long post this is all just too fascinating
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Were I you I would at least come to grasps with what the scientists involved in this research themselves have voiced. I think it's unfair to accuse them of somehow flouting the law in the name of climate change. In a 16th of December, 2008 media release issued by the Australian scientific research organization Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre they addressed this, writing: "Earlier this year, the report formed the basis of discussions at the meeting of signatories to the London Convention - international legislation controlling the input of material into the sea. A key outcome of the deliberations was a statement by the International Maritime Organisation to restrict ocean fertilisation to reseearch purposes only." In the above-mentioned BBC article, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7856144.stm it is written: "However, the environmental impact of Lohafex was questioned by Kristina Gjerde, high seas policy advisor, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). She said: "The fundamental question remains, should this activity be allowed to proceed unregulated? "I am not against research in this area; however, it should follow internationally agreed rules and procedures. The policy advisor, a Norwegian actually ![]() And I completely agree. Restricting fertilizing to research, where it is small-scale, controlled and last but not least, peer-reviewed, should be the only viable option considering the circumstances. What you don't want however is an absence of research followed by a commercialization of this fertilization on open waters (not subject to international law) with poor control and a string of unknown variables. That the scientific community have the knowledge about iron fertilization is not only then useful for possible widespread use later, but also as a future argument for not employing fertilization at all. If we look at the debate what the last 20 years of history show is that there has been a slow, incremental experimenting on this, which has shown itself so far to be very inconclusive. Some marine biologists have the view that although iron is a prime fertilizer of phytoplankton, it does so best 'naturally', in areas such as the Galapagos, rich on iron, where it comes from 'below', not from artificial fertilizer. Quote:
Yet there will always be a concerned party in scientific discourse. Dissent is absolutely neccessary, but that does not mean it is always correct. It's a fine line which scientists thread all the time: risk, funding, peer dissent, lack of research options. The commentary in the WHOI article actually addresses this concern quite well: "Between these viewpoints a middle ground emerged: “There are plenty of ways to do it wrong, but done right, [iron fertilization] does actually sequester carbon for hundreds of years in the place that it would ultimately end up anyway,” Watson said. That may be a tremendous advantage compared with more familiar but less secure approaches like planting trees, he said. Skeptics should not dismiss the idea out of hand before scientists have had the chance to work out the details." The Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, or ACECRC, also issued a very detailed report to the Australian government. I definitely recommend reading it: http://www.acecrc.org.au/uploaded/11...tilisation.pdf Here's a few excerpts that we can look at! ![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
"A reported plan to sprinkle nitrate fertiliser over a 1,600 square kilometre area in the Tasman Sea as part of a global warming experiment may breach global conventions and be dangerous to the environment, WWF-Australia said today. The Sydney University proposal aims to stimulate an explosive bloom of plankton researchers hope will sequester carbon at the bottom of the ocean for up to 100 years. The International Panel for Climate Change has described such a method of carbon sequestration as "speculative and unproven and with the risk of unknown side effects". "If this experiment proceeds, the Australian Government's credibility as a protector of the oceans is on the line," said Mr Rob Nicoll, WWF-Australia's Antarctic and Southern Oceans Initiative Manager." This is definitely an example of irresponsible conduct which seems more like an attempted commercialization (or industrial scale) project than viable research.
__________________
"Well, thief! I smell you and I feel your air. I hear your breath. Come along! Help yourself again, there is plenty and to spare." Last edited by Coffeehouse : 02-20-2009 at 09:56 AM. |
|||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#88 | |||||
The Chocoholic Sea Elf Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: N?n in Eilph (Belgium)
Posts: 14,363
|
Quote:
![]() ![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
We are not things. |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#89 | |||
Entmoot Minister of Foreign Affairs
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 2,145
|
Quote:
![]() Quote:
It exactly the sort of small scale research experiments, as conducted by the Indo-German team and previous scientific teams, that constitute 'adequate scientific' research to form a comprehensive basis. That is why I think it is much more important that professional marine biologists be able to conduct these tests before any other nations or less scientifically-inclined groups decide to do this on a large scale, a commercial scale. That these kinds of small-scale experiments are conducted can be very important if it turns out that sequestration of CO2 does not work well with iron fertilization and/or damages phytoplankton or other marine life. Quote:
![]() Anyways I'm not accusing you of anything you know ![]()
__________________
"Well, thief! I smell you and I feel your air. I hear your breath. Come along! Help yourself again, there is plenty and to spare." |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#90 |
The Chocoholic Sea Elf Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: N?n in Eilph (Belgium)
Posts: 14,363
|
New developments concerning the iron-fertilising project: Setback for climate technical fix.
__________________
We are not things. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#91 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,535
|
Takes brass balls to say, "This was ineffective. We need to do more of it."
![]()
__________________
That would be the swirling vortex to another world. Cool. I want one. TMNT No, I'm not emo. I just have a really poor sense of direction. (Thanks to katya for this quote) This is the best news story EVER! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26087293/ “Often my haste is a mistake, but I live with the consequences without complaint.”...John McCain "I shall go back. And I shall find that therapist. And I shall whack her upside her head with my blanket full of rocks." ...Louisa May |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#92 | |||||
Entmoot Minister of Foreign Affairs
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 2,145
|
Quote:
The conclusion seemed to show negative results in that: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Well, thief! I smell you and I feel your air. I hear your breath. Come along! Help yourself again, there is plenty and to spare." Last edited by Coffeehouse : 03-24-2009 at 04:32 PM. |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Science | ayarella | General Messages | 804 | 04-13-2012 09:05 PM |
Evidence for Evolution | jerseydevil | General Messages | 599 | 05-18-2008 02:43 PM |
How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism II | Nurvingiel | General Messages | 528 | 08-05-2006 03:50 AM |
Questions on biology | Lief Erikson | General Messages | 44 | 04-25-2004 12:18 AM |
The Biology of Elves and Men. | Nurvingiel | Middle Earth | 4 | 02-05-2003 03:32 PM |