I Hope You Don't Like Clams and Oysters

[corpgator]

http://www.slate.com/articles/health...ering_1.2.html

Global Warming/Climate Change can possibly attributed to cycles and not to man, but the extra carbon dioxide is definitely out fault and it's change the ocean's acidity level. Hopefully we cut down on it before it's too late. I love clam chowder.

[exiledgator]

Maine clam flats are suffering. As a recreational clam digger, I've reduced my clamming to only surf clams 2x a year. Plus my one dig a year for cherrystones on MDI. Mmmmm. My local flats (steamers) aren't worth the effort.

From what I can understand, the real diggers are seeing all their flats die fast of late. I say "understand" cause it isn't easy to interpret what a Maine clam digger is actually saying.

[GatorJeff]

Unfortunately, conservatives prefer beef. Until global warming starts impacting cattle, they'll say it's a environmentalists' conspiracy to make us think we're losing our shellfish.

[baygator1]

Originally Posted by GatorJeff

Unfortunately, conservatives prefer beef. Until global warming starts impacting cattle, they'll say it's a environmentalists' conspiracy to make us think we're losing our shellfish.

Conservative here, and I doubt anyone appreciates our marine resources more than I. Clean water - all for it. Clean air - all for it.

The main problem I see with a lot of enviro's is their refusal to acknowledge the full spectrum of influence. Eutrophication is also a significant contributing factor to ocean acidity, but the only thing you really ever hear coming out of the mouth of the enviro's is fossil fuel, fossil fuel, fossil fuel.

Biofuel combustion byproducts are under increasing scrutiny these days. Ethanol and other biofuel combustion produces the same byproducts as 'fossil fuels', plus some new goodies that have serious health and environmental consequences. And, as the linked article points out, there are downstream (no pun intended) consequences to the biofuel agricultural processes (eutrophication) which directly contribute to ocean acidification.
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20...uel-combustion

[baygator1]

In a paper published in the ACS journal Environmental Science & Technology, the authors reported that if the impacts are aggregated using weights developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), overall, E85 generates approximately 6% to 108% (23% on average) greater impact compared with gasoline, depending on where corn is produced, primarily because corn production induces significant eutrophication impacts and requires intensive irrigation. If greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from indirect land use (iLUC) changes are included in the analysis, the differences increase to between 16% and 118% (33% on average).

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2012...6302ec0a0e970d

[corpgator]

Originally Posted by baygator1

Conservative here, and I doubt anyone appreciates our marine resources more than I. Clean water - all for it. Clean air - all for it.

The main problem I see with a lot of enviro's is their refusal to acknowledge the full spectrum of influence. Eutrophication is also a significant contributing factor to ocean acidity, but the only thing you really ever hear coming out of the mouth of the enviro's is fossil fuel, fossil fuel, fossil fuel.

Biofuel combustion byproducts are under increasing scrutiny these days. Ethanol and other biofuel combustion produces the same byproducts as 'fossil fuels', plus some new goodies that have serious health and environmental consequences. And, as the linked article points out, there are downstream (no pun intended) consequences to the biofuel agricultural processes (eutrophication) which directly contribute to ocean acidification.
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20...uel-combustion

Either way, it's still human caused.

[HudsonGator]

One of you bright lads needs to hurry up and invent a commercially viable cold-fusion reactor, problem solved.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

One of you bright lads needs to hurry up and invent a commercially viable cold-fusion reactor, problem solved.

Well the fact of the matter is Eutrophication can be human-caused or natural

[exiledgator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Well the fact of the matter is Eutrophication can be human-caused or natural

That is correct, but one is being willfully ignorant if they hold on to some notion that what is happening to estuaries, intertidal zones, etc is 'natural'.

Admission of human involving does not make one complicit in some grand AGW plot to take over the world.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by exiledgator

That is correct, but one is being willfully ignorant if they hold on to some notion that what is happening to estuaries, intertidal zones, etc is 'natural'.

Admission of human involving does not make one complicit in some grand AGW plot to take over the world.

The reverse can also be said to be true, though I understand the need for some to unabatedly blame humans without looking to the nature process of nature. Can we say for certain how much of it is caused by nutrient collection/accumulation. Eutrophication can also be a natural process in seasonally inundated tropical floodplains.

[exiledgator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

The reverse can also be said to be true, though I understand the need for some to unabatedly blame humans without looking to the nature process of nature. Can we say for certain how much of it is caused by nutrient collection/accumulation. Eutrophication can also be a natural process in seasonally inundated tropical floodplains.

North Atlantic estuaries = seasonally inundated tropical floodplains.

[exiledgator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

The reverse can also be said to be true, though I understand the need for some to unabatedly blame humans without looking to the nature process of nature. Can we say for certain how much of it is caused by nutrient collection/accumulation. Eutrophication can also be a natural process in seasonally inundated tropical floodplains.

And I have no "need to blame humans."

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by exiledgator

North Atlantic estuaries = seasonally inundated tropical floodplains.

Understood, but that is not the only reason I stated. Certainly you have seen large fish kills. There have been a few in Lake Alice in my time at UF. Do you automatically think it was human causation?

[exiledgator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Understood, but you really didn't answer the question

Fair enough.

Yes. All eutrophication is caused by deposit and accumulation. The real question is where are the deposits coming from (waste water effluent, agriculture, etc) and why is the accumulation getting into the water (point sources and non-point sources that are compounded by erosion, asphalt, et al)? Take a look at golf course ponds sometime.

Now there are two things being discussed in this thread and both of the sources are easily linked to human activity:

Acidification through increased atmospheric co2

Eutrophication through increased introduction of nitrates and phosphates to waterways.

And no, I'm not suggesting draconian regulations, I'm just suggesting we look at facts objectively.

[LittleBlueLW]

Originally Posted by GatorJeff

Unfortunately, conservatives prefer beef. Until global warming starts impacting cattle, they'll say it's a environmentalists' conspiracy to make us think we're losing our shellfish.

Conservative here. Climate change has impacted cattle as well as our oceans. No conspiracy necessary. It's true.

The issue is how much money do we as a human society invest in trying to reverse something that has been occurring since way before our time on this earth?

What if we throw enough money to 'solve' climate change only to have a series of solar flares, volcanic eruptions or asteroid strikes undo what we have just spent billions or more 'solving'?

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by exiledgator

Fair enough.

Yes. All eutrophication is caused by deposit and accumulation. The real question is where are the deposits coming from (waste water effluent, agriculture, etc) and why is the accumulation getting into the water (point sources and non-point sources that are compounded by erosion, asphalt, et al)? Take a look at golf course ponds sometime.

Now there are two things being discussed in this thread and both of the sources are easily linked to human activity:

Acidification through increased atmospheric co2

Eutrophication through increased introduction of nitrates and phosphates to waterways.

And no, I'm not suggesting draconian regulations, I'm just suggesting we look at facts objectively.

Certainly we should never permit pollution from septic systems and sewers which I find 100% unacceptable. The other I'm aware that can cause accumulation of nutrients is increase flow of both inorganic nutrients and organic substances into the ecosystem. This can be human causation or natural as implied. Either way there are certainly steps that can be made to help limit these situations, at least without the expense of turning people's lives upside down