Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Scientists Race To Save Miami Coral Doomed By Dredging

samzenpus posted about 3 months ago | from the last-chance dept.

Earth 99

An anonymous reader writes "Miami scientists are scrambling to rescue a crop of coral at the bottom of one of the world's busiest shipping channels that they say could hold clues about climate change. 'The coral, which may hold clues about how sea life adapts to climate change, is growing in Government Cut. The channel, created more than a century ago, leads to PortMiami and is undergoing a $205 million dredging project — scheduled to begin Saturday — to deepen the sea floor by about 10 feet in time for a wave of new monster cargo ships cruising through an expanded Panama Canal starting in 2015. Endangered coral and larger coral have already been removed by a team hired by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which is overseeing the dredging work. But the remaining coral, deemed "corals of opportunity" in Corps lingo, can be retrieved with a permit. The problem, scientists say, is they only had 12 days between when the permits were issued last month and the start of dredging, not nearly enough time to save the unusual colonies thriving in Government Cut.'"

cancel ×

99 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

"by a team hired by the U.S. Army Corps of..." (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47191209)

What the fuck does helping private companies make profit have to do with the U.S. Army?

Re: "by a team hired by the U.S. Army Corps of..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47191265)

Not sure I understand your point. Are you implying the Army should have just forced people at gunpoint to do this work?

Re: "by a team hired by the U.S. Army Corps of..." (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47191339)

You don't see a problem with the Army being employed to "deepen the sea floor by about 10 feet in time for a wave of new monster cargo ships"?

What would you say is the purpose of the military, AC?

Re: "by a team hired by the U.S. Army Corps of..." (4, Informative)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 3 months ago | (#47191379)

It's the Army Corps of Engineers, you twit. They oversee/control the work on waterways, dams, levees, canals and flood control all over the country.

Re: "by a team hired by the U.S. Army Corps of..." (1)

guises (2423402) | about 3 months ago | (#47193593)

You might question why it's the army doing this and not some branch of the government dedicated to the purpose. I'm not sure that it's a problem, exactly, but it does seem a little odd. I expect it's that way simply for historic reasons.

Re: "by a team hired by the U.S. Army Corps of..." (4, Insightful)

usuallylost (2468686) | about 3 months ago | (#47194141)

Well the army has to maintain a staff of competent engineers for use during war time when they need to do things like open harbors, clear beaches, build air strips, build costal defenses etc. Those guys can either just sit around during peacetime or the Government can give them other responsiblities. So the government gets to use engineers, construction crews etc that it is already paying for rather than letting them sit idle and hiring somebody else. Also it keeps their skills up to date by having them work on real projects on a more or less continuous basis.

Re: "by a team hired by the U.S. Army Corps of..." (1)

coolsnowmen (695297) | about 3 months ago | (#47198145)

Well the army has to maintain a staff of ...

It does? why...

Re: "by a team hired by the U.S. Army Corps of..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47200065)

Yes, troll, yes it does. It is why our Army is the best one around, because we always train the way we fight, and fight the way we train. Now kindly fuck off.

Re: "by a team hired by the U.S. Army Corps of..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47195085)

Well, its the Army so that is a branch of the US govt...and its the Corps of Engineers so it sounds like its pretty dedicated to the purpose of engineering...

Re: "by a team hired by the U.S. Army Corps of..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47195519)

not to mention that I doubt you will find anybody critical of the corp in the south. they are the reason why we have clean water and electricity in the first place.

Re: "by a team hired by the U.S. Army Corps of... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47191391)

That is exactly what the engineers do, so yes, it isn't a problem.

Though you're a troll.... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47191531)

Though you're a troll, I'll answer. The Army is responsible for security of the nation. To do that, they have to be able to move a lot of stuff from garrison to wherever the war is. That quantity of shit moves 3 ways, truck, train and boat. Now, trucks and trains are clearly mostly for interestate commerce; you move stuff from one place to another inside the country. Therefore, they fit in the constitutional categories of postal service. It's a historical artifact, but federal support of them is justified under the postal clause of the constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 empowers congress ..."To establisht post offices and post roads". But, the federal funding for those is through the Department of Transportation. Navigable waterways and ports, however, are much more an international commerce thing. The army started maintaining them to be able to support the armies out west, and that tradition has continued, since they have the expertise. Believe it or not, the Army has more boats than the Navy. Back to the point, though, having ocean facing ports is very much part of the Army's ability to move men and supplies, so it remains in that interesting mostly-civilian adjunct, the army corp of engineers. So how about hydropower? How is that a military thing? Well, the genesis of that was generating enough to separate uranium for the Manhattan project.

Re: Though you're a troll.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47193617)

As a veteran of the Navy I want to clarify this. "In modern parlance a ship has been any large buoyant watercraft. Ships are generally distinguished from boats based on size, shape and cargo or passenger capacity."

TLDR: A boat can be put on a ship but you can't put a ship on a boat. At a certain length the USN designates a "boat" as a ship. The Army has more boats. They're small. And cute.

Re: Though you're a troll.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47195251)

Submarines are "boats". US, UK, and Russian ones are neither small nor cute. Most of the diesel electrics are rather cute though.

Re: Though you're a troll.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47197981)

They're underwater vessels and only uniquely named a "boat" for historical purposes; submarines used to be launched off of ships. It's carried on today because of submarines being recognized as the number one source of gay sex jokes in the Navy. Love boats. Thanks submariners.

Re: Though you're a troll.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47200075)

So is it historical purposes or you just cherry picking? Your definition said: "A boat can be put on a ship but you can't put a ship on a boat" Now I know for a fact that you can get several ships that launch submarines...do subs even have lifeboats?

"Clues about climate change"? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47191225)

Look, let's cut the crap. We know that global warming exists. We know that humans are responsible for it. Those are facts. Intelligent left-wingers realize this. Intelligent centrists realize this. Intelligent right-wingers realize this. There's nothing to debate! There are no "clues" needed!

And we already know what happens to animal life that's subjected to climate change: it dies out, sooner or later.

Save the coral, for crying out loud, but don't pretend that it's being done to preserve evidence of global warming. There is so much evidence already that even if these coral were harmed, it would have no impact.

Save the coral because the coral deserves to be saved.

Re:"Clues about climate change"? (3, Funny)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 3 months ago | (#47191435)

And we already know what happens to animal life that's subjected to climate change: it dies out, sooner or later.

You are not a believer in evolution?

Re:"Clues about climate change"? (1)

Livius (318358) | about 3 months ago | (#47191743)

Dying out is an essential part of evolution.

Re:"Clues about climate change"? (3, Informative)

ShnowDoggie (858806) | about 3 months ago | (#47192783)

Evolution takes time. What we appear to be seeing is climate change at a rate far faster than normal. The Earth has seen climate change at this rate before. In those cases life took a step back due to mass extinction.

Re:"Clues about climate change"? (1)

DiamondGeezer (872237) | about 3 months ago | (#47193523)

"...than normal..."

We see the problem right there in that statement.

Re:"Clues about climate change"? (1)

cmdr_tofu (826352) | about 3 months ago | (#47193793)

If you don't view conditions that humans have recently created "natural" then it makes sense that the type of climate change we are seeing is "abnormal".

For instance if I dump my empty paint containers into the pond, the frogs which have adapted over millienia unsurprisingly die. We are doing this type of thing on a global scale with global impact. Species are going extinct not because they are unfit to survive in "natural" conditions, but because they are unfit to survive in artificially-induced conditions (pollution, etc) that probably aren't all that healthy for humans either.

Further, since almost all of the medicine we have created has keys in the natural world (from looking at some existing Earth plant of animal), it is in our interest to preserve biodiversity.

Re:"Clues about climate change"? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47191447)

> Save the coral, for crying out loud, but don't pretend that it's being done to preserve evidence of global warming.

It has nothing to do with evidence of global warming and everything to do with how coral adapts to global warming. That is information that we may be able to use to help out other coral reefs which are seeing massive devastation due to global warming. [teachoceanscience.net]

Re:"Clues about climate change"? (3, Interesting)

BitZtream (692029) | about 3 months ago | (#47192371)

Save the coral because the coral deserves to be saved.

No, it really doesn't. It deserves nothing.

You can argue that YOU (and other people) want it to survive. You can argue its bad for humans in some way.

What you can not argue is that change can be stopped. The universe IS change. Evolution by definition means the end of species. Humans exist BECAUSE another species ceased, our ancestors.

Species go extinct every day, new ones are created every single day. This is the way of things.

I'm not saying we should say fuck the environment, its in our best interest of the world to stay relatively close to how it is today for the foreseeable future, but people like you really need to stop pretending you can keep the planet exactly like it is forever. All that will happen if you try is your death at the hands of your own starvation.

Re:"Clues about climate change"? (4, Insightful)

ShnowDoggie (858806) | about 3 months ago | (#47192839)

"but people like you really need to stop pretending you can keep the planet exactly like it is forever. All that will happen if you try is your death at the hands of your own starvation."

Many well informed people would argue the exact opposite is true. The environment is changing, not despite us, but in fact because of us. Right now the world should be in a period of environmental stability. Instead we are seeing easily measured change. Furthermore, in many cases we can measure how this change is causing our own death. Just take a look at the pollution issues in China right now. Also take a look at how bad the smog was in Los Angeles a few decades ago. Without effort the air in and around Los Angeles would be unsafe causing many heath problems, heavy economic loss and early death.

Local change is easy to track. Global change is more difficult to track and not as visible to individuals. Here too we have example of what we can do. One well studied example is the hole in the ozone. We found it. We studied it. We changed our behavior. And now it is getting better.

Users Race To Save Slashdot (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47191249)

Slashdot Beta will only be a stone around the neck of an already dwindling user base. It's time to tell the powers-that-be that this will not be tolerated.
 
Boycott Dice!
Boycott ThinkGeek!
Boycott Beta!

Re:Users Race To Save Slashdot (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47191725)

It's not worth saving. Just go to soylent news [7rmath4ro2of2a42.onion] .

Mass extinction waits for no-one (2, Funny)

Urkki (668283) | about 3 months ago | (#47191277)

Giving 12 days to perhaps save a tiny bit of biodiversity and learn something about doomed nature is too generous, not to mention pointless, such a waste of time. Pave the Earth and be done with it, already! /sarcasm

Pave the Earth! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47191285)

Don't forget to chrome the Moon while you're at it!

Re:Pave the Earth! (3, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 3 months ago | (#47191453)

"Don't chrome the Moon, explore it!" -- Bill Gates

Re:Pave the Earth! (2)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 3 months ago | (#47191905)

Navigate it! - Netscape

Re:Pave the Earth! (1)

DiamondGeezer (872237) | about 3 months ago | (#47193529)

+1 Funny

It's a shame no-one noticed but me.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (2, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 3 months ago | (#47191389)

Giving 12 days to perhaps save a tiny bit of biodiversity and learn something about doomed nature

The degree of "doomedness" is highly questionable.

I don't dispute that human activities have harmed coral in many cases. But coral evolved when it was both warmer than it is now, AND the concentration of CO2 was many times what it is today.

Also, studies have shown that the pH in a given location of the ocean typically varies every day far more than any amount that can be attributed to CO2.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47191467)

> But coral evolved when it was both warmer than it is now, AND the concentration of CO2 was many times what it is today.

Over millenia, not decades.

> studies have shown that the pH in a given location of the ocean typically varies every day far more than any amount that can be attributed to CO2.

But the average over the entire day has been significantly increased. Much like how air temperatures may vary by 20-30 degrees F from night to day but a change in the average daily temperatures of just a couple of degrees has a major effect on growing seasons, insect viability, etc.

For a geek you suuuuuuck at math.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (1, Interesting)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 3 months ago | (#47191539)

But the average over the entire day has been significantly increased.

Please define "significantly". The amount of "significance" depends on natural variability. As already mentioned, any differences that can be honestly attributed to CO2 don't seem to be "significant" in that context. Further, you seemed to miss the point that coral evolved in conditions of MUCH higher CO2 concentrations, not just a little or even double or triple, but far more than even an order of magnitude. Whether they did it quickly or slowly has little bearing on the fact that they did it.

Much like how air temperatures may vary by 20-30 degrees F from night to day but a change in the average daily temperatures of just a couple of degrees has a major effect on growing seasons, insect viability, etc.

I know how it works. And that's correct: historically, and in general, a degree or two warmer on average has lengthened growing seasons, making them more productive. And higher CO2 concentrations generally helps plant growth (which is why some greenhouse operations add CO2 to their greenhouse air).

For a geek you suuuuuuck at math.

This would seem to be a rather large leap to conclusion, since no actual "math" has appeared here.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47191627)

> Please define "significantly".

How about you define what doesn't qualify as significant. You are the expert after all.

> Further, you seemed to miss the point that coral evolved in conditions of MUCH higher CO2 concentrations

Yes millenia ago, since then theyve continued to evolve such that they have adapted to current conditions which have been relatively static for millenia. The level of intellectual dishonesty on your part is mind-numbing.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (2)

symbolset (646467) | about 3 months ago | (#47191811)

Also, in a period of 10,000 years starting 18,000 years ago sea levels rose 400 feet, with commensurate changes in temperature, salinity and acidity. Somehow the corals survived.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47191931)

> Also, in a period of 10,000 years starting 18,000 years ago sea levels rose 400 feet,

That's true, or close enough to true that its not worth quibbling over here.

> with commensurate changes in temperature, salinity and acidity.

That's completely unsupported by the evidence, something you just randomly tacked on hoping to get it by.

But despite that, what also happened is that coral diversity went into the shitter. It isn't a case of "somehow" its a case of things got really crappy for a long time and eventually recovered after thousands of years - that's in the fossil record. Now that the human population is several orders of magnitude greater than before, we are much more dependent on the ocean, small changes have a lot bigger impact on human civilisation.

The thing that soooo many of you deniers can't grasp is that it isn't about "saving the planet" -- the planet is going to be here in one form or another no matter what. It is about saving US. Even small disruptions in the food chain will have large impacts on our quality of life - do you want your kids to live in the modern equivalent of a bombay slum?

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 3 months ago | (#47192819)

How is adding 3% more fresh water to the oceans going to not have impacts on salinity, acidity and temperature? That is just common sense.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (1)

Deadstick (535032) | about 3 months ago | (#47195445)

Well, let's see. The salinity of the oceans has a worldwide range of about 3.1 - 3.8%, with most of it in the range 3.4 - 3.7%. If you add freshwater equal to 3% of the total, you'll take roughly 1/10 of a percentage point off those figures.

Acid concentrations, of course, are much lower than salt concentrations, and the added water will likely have about the same acidity anyway. Given that the added water comes from icemelt, there will be more liquid water surface exposed to sunlight and that will likely increase the temperatures.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 3 months ago | (#47192027)

Also, in a period of 10,000 years starting 18,000 years ago sea levels rose 400 feet, with commensurate changes in temperature, salinity and acidity. Somehow the corals survived.

Here is something -- slightly off-topic but still peripheral to the subject -- that I admit puzzles me: the solubility issue.

I would have to collect some formulas together and actually do some math... but in general, as temperature goes up, the solubility of CO2 in water decreases. So I am curious how alarmists are claiming both that the temperature will go up, and the amount of dissolved CO2 will also go up. Those two things would seem to work against each other.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (4, Informative)

khayman80 (824400) | about 3 months ago | (#47192151)

I would have to collect some formulas together and actually do some math... but in general, as temperature goes up, the solubility of CO2 in water decreases. So I am curious how alarmists are claiming both that the temperature will go up, and the amount of dissolved CO2 will also go up. Those two things would seem to work against each other. [Jane Q. Public] [slashdot.org]

They do work against each other, but our CO2 emissions are so rapid that they overwhelm the solubility effect. Once again [slashdot.org] , what you're dismissing as "alarmism" is actually mainstream science. Temperatures are going up, and dissolved CO2 is also going up.

I tried to explain this point [archive.today] at WUWT, to no avail: Use Henry’s Law to calculate the CO2 due to the ~0.8C surface warming since the Industrial Revolution. You’ll find that only ~20ppm of the actual ~100ppm rise could even hypothetically be explained by the ocean outgassing

So the reason CO2 in the ocean can increase at the same time surface temperatures increase is because that CO2 comes from our use of fossil fuels, not ocean outgassing. And we're adding to the atmosphere much faster than the warming oceans can lose their dissolved CO2 due to Henry's Law.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (-1, Troll)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 3 months ago | (#47192963)

They do work against each other, but our CO2 emissions are so rapid that they overwhelm the solubility effect. Once again [slashdot.org], what you're dismissing as "alarmism" is actually mainstream science. Temperatures are going up, and dissolved CO2 is also going up.

And once again, you are distorting my comment, which was an admission that I did not know the answer, and characterizing it instead as some kind of denial.

You have deserved this at least a hundred times: fuck off, until you figure out how to actually have a discussion with someone rather than insulting them and claiming they said something they didn't.

You sorely lack social skills, man. I mean the minimum kind needed to have a rational debate.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (0)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 3 months ago | (#47193453)

Given the content of your reply, I am going to give you some credit for relevance. But I do so only very cautiously, in light of your past behavior.

I say up front: if you have science to present, then present it. Facts and figures, with references. Otherwise, you have nothing to say to me. I have been very tolerant, and even so I do not like you, or your behavior, or your methods. But if you can produce real science, I will look at it.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (-1, Redundant)

DiamondGeezer (872237) | about 3 months ago | (#47193557)

Your statement is one large fallacy: Post hoc ergo propter hoc "It came after therefore it was caused by"

The CO2 changes in the atmosphere are neither rapid nor unprecedented. Also, the clear witness of ice cores is that rises and falls in CO2 in the atmosphere are a centuries delayed response to climatic warming and cooling. Since 97% of CO2 is from natural sources, the man-made contribution is tiny compared to the natural evolution of CO2 from our oceans which originated in the Medieval Warm Period.

Using Henry's Law only works if there is carbon dioxide equilibrium between the ocean and the atmosphere. There isn't.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (0)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 3 months ago | (#47208125)

I would also like to point out again that even if acidification is happening, the RESULTS of that acidification are probably less than alarmists have claimed. Example (2010 article):

http://www.rationaloptimist.co... [rationaloptimist.com]

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 3 months ago | (#47192267)

If I recall my chemistry correctly, there's two factors that determine the amount of gas dissolved in a liquid: The solubility, and the partial pressure of the gas in the atmosphere. So, if solubility decreases less than partial pressure increases, the total amount of dissolved CO2 will increase.

Now, consider what humanity is doing - we're directly increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and with it the partial pressure. Which is going to immediately begin increasing the amount of CO2 in the ocean as it moves towards equilibrium. It will also start to increase the temperature of the planet, but that happens *much* more slowly, and so solubility changes won't be seen until much later. Best case scenario eventually the solubility reduction finally catches up with the increased CO2 levels, but that probably requires that we first stop forcing the system by creating so much CO2. And you still get an acidity spike over the decades during which the CO2 partial pressure exceeds the reduction in solubility. And if the acidity gets high enough then even a few years will kill almost all the coral. Just one of the little bonus features of the fact that it's elevated CO2 levels that are forcing the temperature change for the first time in at least hundreds of millions of years.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (0)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 3 months ago | (#47192977)

If I recall my chemistry correctly, there's two factors that determine the amount of gas dissolved in a liquid: The solubility, and the partial pressure of the gas in the atmosphere. So, if solubility decreases less than partial pressure increases, the total amount of dissolved CO2 will increase.

I understand this quite well, thank you, which was why I stated that I would need to get some formulas together and make some calculations before I made up my mind about the issue.

Do not expect me to take your word for it. There have been so many distortions of science made in the name of AGW that I don't take anyone's word for it, I would have to see the data.

I expect that you understand. At least, unlike the other responder, you didn't just distort my comments and cast personal aspersions. Sometimes, even assuming I am an ignorant layperson is better than the responses other climate alarmists give.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 3 months ago | (#47194949)

Well, if you want to know the exact degree of acidification to be expected I agree you would need the specific formulas and a range of reasonable projections for atmospheric CO2 levels and water temperatures. On the other hand recognizing that there will be at least some temporary level of unavoidable acidification so long as temperature changes lag behind CO2 increases only requires a basic understanding of first principles.

Or even simply looking at the measurements of what's already happening: Average atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from 280ppm to 400ppm since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and thus far the average ocean temperature changes are less than a degree. Measurements of carbonic acid levels are meanwhile showing the expected increase considering that we've increased the partial-pressure of CO2 by ~43% without yet substantially changing the temperature.

And if you want to work out the details, well then as with most materials science you don't actually want formulas - you want raw observational solubility data plots, untainted by theoretical predictions. This stuff has lots of industrial applications, so it should be free of any of the AGW related distortions you fear.
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (4, Informative)

khayman80 (824400) | about 3 months ago | (#47192069)

"Ocean Acidification” is an up-and-coming buzz phrase used by global warming alarmists. They say it will harm sea life like coral. [Lonny Eachus] [archive.today]

Caused by CO2, of course. The problem with that theory is that coral evolved when CO2 concentration was *70 TIMES* what it is now. [Lonny Eachus] [archive.today]

"Warmists" like to scare over things like death of coral due to ocean acidification from CO2. Coral evolved at a time of 70x today’s CO2. [Lonny Eachus] [archive.today]

The degree of "doomedness" is highly questionable. I don't dispute that human activities have harmed coral in many cases. But coral evolved when it was both warmer than it is now, AND the concentration of CO2 was many times what it is today. ... [Jane Q. Public] [slashdot.org]

If atmospheric CO2 increases slowly, ocean pH doesn't change significantly because it's buffered by carbonates and land weathering on long time scales. See Fig. 2 in Honisch et al. 2012 [sciencemag.org] (PDF [colorado.edu] ):

"When CO2 dissolves in seawater, it reacts with water to form carbonic acid, which then dissociates to bicarbonate, carbonate, and hydrogen ions. The higher concentration of hydrogen ions makes seawater acidic, but this process is buffered on long time scales by the interplay of seawater, seafloor carbonate sediments, and weathering on land."

It's incredibly ironic that Jane Q. Public and Lonny Eachus both point to paleoclimate evidence to support their dismissal of ocean acidification. Honisch et al. 2012 also discusses the observed consequences of releasing CO2 more quickly, such as during the end-Permian and PETM.

Paleoclimate evidence shows that ocean acidification depends on the rate of CO2 emissions, not the amount in the atmosphere.

Further, it has been shown that DAILY VARIATION of ocean pH at a given location is greater than any change attributable to CO2. [Lonny Eachus] [archive.today]

Also, studies have shown that the pH in a given location of the ocean typically varies every day far more than any amount that can be attributed to CO2. [Jane Q. Public] [slashdot.org]

Daily variations can be ~10C or more, but during the end-Permian a ~10C rise in the long term global average temperature coincidentally happened when ~90% of all species went extinct. Furthermore, the marine extinction pattern has ocean acidification's fingerprints on it. Knoll et al. 2007 [harvard.edu] (PDF [stanford.edu] ) showed that during the end-Permian extinction, ~85% of genuses like coral with aragonite (CaCO3) skeletons went extinct, but only ~5% of genuses like fish with other skeletons went extinct. The rapid CO2 increase during the PETM also led to a similar albeit less severe marine extinction pattern. Again by coincidence?

Corals evolved during the Cambrian Era with CO2 7-20X higher than today. "Ocean acidificiation" is just another scam. pic.twitter.com/AufWkV57hR ["Steve Goddard" retweeted by Lonny Eachus] [archive.today]

No Lonny, it's not a scam. Extremely rapid CO2 emissions like ours lower the saturation level of aragonite (CaCO3) in the oceans, but these saturation levels are also higher in the tropics. Comparing these spatial variations to locations of coral reefs is another way to see how sensitive reefs are to aragonite saturation levels. Here’s an excerpt from 44 minutes into Ken Caldeira’s 2012 AGU lecture [youtube.com] :

"... if it was possible for reefs to adapt, and thrive and compete ecologically at lower saturation levels, they would’ve been doing that at the edge of their range today... there’s been pressure for them to adapt to lower saturation conditions throughout geologic time and they haven’t succeeded in competing in that, and so I think the idea that they’re going to somehow undergo some kind of massive evolutionary leap and suddenly be able to live in waters that they’ve never lived in before is a bit unrealistic... under a business as usual scenario it’s at least likely that coral reefs will not be sustainable... "

Coral evolved when CO2 was 70 TIMES higher. @LostTurntable News: pH at a given ocean location varies more in a single day than "acidification” due to CO2. Get an education. [Lonny Eachus] [archive.today]

Get an education like Lonny's associates degree [webcitation.org] in web development, or Jane Q. Public's associates degree [slashdot.org] in web development? Those degrees don't seem very related to the chemistry and paleoceanography that Lonny and Jane are dismissing.

Before you check the educations of Honisch et al. and Knoll et al. and Ken Caldeira, maybe you'd like to make it interesting? Would Jane and/or Lonny Eachus like to bet, say, $100 that these authors' educations are less relevant to chemistry and paleoceanography than Jane's and Lonny's associates degrees in web development? (No peeking!)

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (1)

khallow (566160) | about 3 months ago | (#47192815)

It's incredibly ironic that Jane Q. Public and Lonny Eachus both point to paleoclimate evidence to support their dismissal of ocean acidification. Honisch et al. 2012 also discusses the observed consequences of releasing CO2 more quickly, such as during the end-Permian and PETM.

What would you expect them to do for a rational rebuttal of ocean acidification? And this argument reminds me of interpretations of the Great Depression. Everyone wants to interpret it in terms of their personal ideologies and pet theories. In particular, I see no real argument for saying that the PETM had significant ocean acidification yet this isn't the first it's been trotted out as an example of the dire effects of ocean acidification.

And of course, you finish your post with the argument from authority fallacy.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (4, Informative)

khayman80 (824400) | about 3 months ago | (#47192861)

I see no real argument for saying that the PETM had significant ocean acidification yet this isn't the first it's been trotted out as an example of the dire effects of ocean acidification. [khallow] [slashdot.org]

Rapid Acidification of the Ocean During the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum [sciencemag.org]

Rapid and sustained surface ocean acidification during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum [wiley.com]

Ocean acidification and surface water carbonate production across the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum [ucl.ac.uk]

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (1)

khallow (566160) | about 3 months ago | (#47192929)

Ok, so what supports the claim that the level of ocean acidification was significant? For example, one would expect some increase in dissolution of calcite just from the temperature increase that occurred during the PETM.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (2)

khayman80 (824400) | about 3 months ago | (#47192945)

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (1)

khallow (566160) | about 3 months ago | (#47192999)

I see the following in the abstract:

We conclude that dissolution and dysoxia were not the cause of the extinctions, which were probably related to intense warming that occurred before the onset of the CIE.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (2)

khayman80 (824400) | about 3 months ago | (#47193139)

Most extinctions are caused by multiple stresses; rapid CO2 emissions stress ecosystems via rapid warming and ocean acification. Rapid warming during the PETM stressed the land, causing turnover and causing insects to proliferate but causing no major extinctions. Rapid warming and ocean acidification induced by rapid CO2 emissions affected the oceans, causing the benthic extinction event that Alagret et al. 2009 attributed mainly to the rapid warming due to rapid CO2 emissions. Since ocean acidification affected benthic species but not land species, it's either responsible for the fact that the PETM affected benthic species worse than on land... or something else is. Regardless, we can agree that the most significant stresses leading to PETM benthic extinctions are CO2-induced rapid warming and CO2-induced ocean acidification.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (0)

khallow (566160) | about 3 months ago | (#47193483)

Most extinctions are caused by multiple stresses; rapid CO2 emissions stress ecosystems via rapid warming and ocean acification.

Most extinction you will never know happened, much less have a clue how they happened.

Since ocean acidification affected benthic species but not land species, it's either responsible for the fact that the PETM affected benthic species worse than on land... or something else is.

And "something else" is a large class of things even just in the scope of climate right now including substantial global warming (which incidentally need not have come from CO2) and massive volcanic eruptions.

Regardless, we can agree that the most significant stresses leading to PETM benthic extinctions are CO2-induced rapid warming and CO2-induced ocean acidification.

Regardless, we can't otherwise you would not have felt the need to write the above. I think what bothers me most about posts like yours above is the false certainty. You may well be 100% right, but you don't have a good reason to expect that.

And we also have still not demonstrated that ocean acidification was a significant factor in the PETM except to demonstrate that there are some scientists who think it is. Admittedly, that is evidence of a sort, but not very good evidence.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (0)

khayman80 (824400) | about 3 months ago | (#47193571)

Citation for PETM warming not due to GHG like CO2/methane?

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (0)

khallow (566160) | about 3 months ago | (#47197111)

I have a question for you. Are you a scientist or do you merely play one in real life?

You made a blanket statement about extinctions. I originally interpreted that to not include the particular circumstances of the PETM. But even if we do, we don't know exactly how species became extinct. They don't leave a DOA certificate even when they leave evidence of themselves in the fossil record. But yes, I would expect benthic species to be inordinately affected by what is alleged here to have occurred during the PETM.

Second, this is a case of moving of goalposts. Originally, we were speaking of ocean acidification and evidence for it in the geological record. That is why you mentioned the PETM in the first place. Since, you enlarged that to include global warming effects

Most extinctions are caused by multiple stresses; rapid CO2 emissions stress ecosystems via rapid warming and ocean acification.

And now you have ignored ocean acidification altogether.

Further, it matters a lot to our current situation whether that warming was primarily due to CO2 or methane. The latter creates a more intense greenhouse effect, but is far less persistent in atmosphere. It also indicates that methane was released more or less suddenly in geological terms (maybe suddenly in human terms too!), perhaps due to clathrate ice decomposition.

In the case of a primary contribution due to methane, one only has to worry, if we're releasing methane (say due to clathrate tipping points). I think being in an ice age helps reduce the amount of methane that can be released as well as putting more physical pressure on existing methane clathrates in the oceans. And we probably can burn a good portion of the methane that does get released if it gets really bad.

While if the heating were due to CO2, then that's a problem in the not-so-distant future, since we're pretty much implementing that particular scenario right now with CO2 concentrations at the alleged level of 2000 Gtons around say 2150 (assuming we can and do sustain CO2 emissions at present day levels).

Finally, asking for a citation for a irrelevant aside is in my view a very amateur move. It's not as bad as some I've seen (particularly those who ask for citations on opinions).

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (1)

khayman80 (824400) | about 3 months ago | (#47197463)

Are you a scientist or do you merely play one in real life?

I'd rather not spend my birthday responding to "questions" like these. Pass.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (1)

khallow (566160) | about 3 months ago | (#47197605)

How about tomorrow then? I understand birthdays only happen once a year. That leaves plenty of time to answer rhetorical questions.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (1)

khayman80 (824400) | about 3 months ago | (#47197671)

There's also plenty of time to bash my head against a wall. That would be more fun and more productive [dumbscientist.com] than "talking" with you.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (1)

khallow (566160) | about 3 months ago | (#47197849)

It is kind of sad that my concerns back then have yet to be addressed in four years. Well, more time will eventually demonstrate whether there is any merit to these concerns about ocean acidification.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (0)

p51d007 (656414) | about 3 months ago | (#47191637)

Coral will grow back. Ever notice when the tree huggers (lump them all into the same group) want to save something it is in the name of "global warming/climate change"...that is their catch all phrase to scare people that can't think for themselves.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47191695)

> Coral will grow back.

Yeah, in about a thousand years. In the meantime the ocean will be a desert with no life underground.
You want your kids to live with that?

> Ever notice when the tree huggers ... is their catch all phrase to scare people that can't think for themselves.

Lol at catch phrases.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47191767)

Thousands of years? Government Cut was built in 1905. The coral has only been growing 109 years or so. For a geek you suuuuuuck at math.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47191799)

Holy false equivalence batfuck. The channel happens to be where one beneficial mutation may have occurred in one specific species, that's all we'll ever know unless this coral is preserved for study. Even then it may well turn out to be a dead-end. But you keep on with that hopey feely shit.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (2)

zippthorne (748122) | about 3 months ago | (#47191483)

These particular coral are quite doomed. They are, after all, scheduled to be dredged...

The language is a bit suspicious, though,

... wave of new monster cargo ships...

instead of "[to make way for] larger, more efficient cargo ships." or something more neutral.

Shipping companies don't want bigger ships just for the heck of it, after all, they want bigger ships because they can move cargo at lower cost per ton.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (1)

cdrudge (68377) | about 3 months ago | (#47194733)

monster: noun - something that is extremely or unusually large

Existing container ships are large. While yes you can always say "larger", that alone doesn't really convey the size since they already are so large.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47191591)

it's not about the starting conditions, it's all about the rate of change..

and yeah, it might go below freezing for a little while each night in winter and we can survive it. so it's healthy for us to be below freezing all the time right?

in the case of corals and other calcium depositing animals like shellfish at some times in the day they deposit ca, at other times of the day it desolves. at long as you're depositing 51% net, you'll grow. raise the acidity of the ocean by 30% and you're fucked. we've already raised the acidity of the ocean by 30[fucking]% in 150 years. therefore major fucking problem batman.

Whatever. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47191791)

Whatever [wikipedia.org] you want [noaa.gov] to beleive [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (2)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | about 3 months ago | (#47192049)

The degree of "doomedness" is highly questionable.

That may be so. Or it might not be. I don't know enough about this issue to judge. On the other hand, I do know enough to say with certainty that the logic of your arguments is "highly questionable."

I don't dispute that human activities have harmed coral in many cases. But coral evolved when it was both warmer than it is now, AND the concentration of CO2 was many times what it is today.

What does that have to do with anything? An ancestor of a lifeform from the Cambrian era 500 million years ago evolved to survive in the environment of 500 million years ago. That has no bearing on whether a descendant (which may have evolved significantly since then) that survives well in today's environment would survive well if you put it in a time machine and shipped it back 500 million years.

Let's figure out who one of your ancestors in the "life family tree" was 500 million years ago, and see whether you're well-adpated to survive in its environment living on its sources of food and energy, huh?

Also, studies have shown that the pH in a given location of the ocean typically varies every day far more than any amount that can be attributed to CO2.

Just because something can survive in one environment for a few hours per day or whatever in a healthy way doesn't mean that the organism would still be healthy if subjected to the extremes of that environment continuously.

Let's put this in terms of another example: In other news, many people's diets vary by hundreds of calories from day to day. Some days they might eat 2500 calories; other days they might eat 1800 calories. But if they require an average of 2000 calories/day to maintain weight, there's no possible way they could gain weight by eating an average of 2300 calories/day.

Why? Because -- following your logic -- the daily variability of up to 700 calories is larger than the average increase over baseline of 300 calories. So, there's no possible way they could gain weight. Organisms will be just as healthy living at the extremes of daily variability as they would at the normal average. QED.

I await your forthcoming publication for a new diet plan.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 3 months ago | (#47192327)

That may be so. Or it might not be. I don't know enough about this issue to judge.

... that, by definition and your own statements ... makes it highly questionable.

The rest of your post is just disputing facts in exchange for theories

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (1)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | about 3 months ago | (#47193079)

That may be so. Or it might not be. I don't know enough about this issue to judge.

... that, by definition and your own statements ... makes it highly questionable.

Why? A person doesn't have to be an expert in any particular area to spot an error in logic.

The rest of your post is just disputing facts in exchange for theories

I didn't dispute ANY facts. I pointed out that the stated facts are irrelevant without other supporting evidence. Why? Because other well-known facts demonstrate that the facts presented were not sufficient to make a logical case for the conclusion.

For example:

FACT: Many lifeforms on earth differ significantly from their ancestors 500 million years ago.
FACT: As lifeforms evolve over millions of years, they adapt to the present environment, which may involve losing adaptations to past extreme environments.
COROLLARY: Saying "Your great-great-great-[times a few million]-grandpappy could've thrived under conditions X" has no bearing on whether you can survive under conditions X.

FACT: Many lifeforms encounter extreme conditions at some point during the course of the day which would be harmful or fatal if they were exposed to such conditions constantly.
EXAMPLE: Look at common plants -- some like "partial sun," for example. They might do okay with low light or intermittent light for most of the day. They might do okay if you exposed them to direct sunlight for a couple hours and less light for the rest of the day. But if you exposed them to the equivalent of direct sunlight for 24 hours/day every day, they'd likely wither up and die.
COROLLARY: Saying "Organism X can thrive under more extreme conditions Y for a few hours each day" does NOT logically imply that organism X will always be able to survive under CONSTANT extreme conditions Y.

Now, if the parent poster has evidence that coral TODAY can survive and thrive under the changing conditions discussed, THAT would be interesting, and it would actually be evidence in favor of the point. For example, "Coral are more resilient than we might think: they evolved in extreme conditions 500 million years ago, and experiments X, Y, and Z show that this variety would continue to thrive in such conditions even today." The first part of the sentence is still irrelevant to the argument, but at least it makes sense.

As it stands, the parent post consisted solely of facts completely irrelevant to the argument.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (0)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 3 months ago | (#47193105)

Now, if the parent poster has evidence that coral TODAY can survive and thrive under the changing conditions discussed

In fact I did. I mentioned that the DAILY variability of pH is far higher than any change that can be honestly attributed to pH. If you were to do your research (which you obviously have not done), you would already know that these animals have been through conditions far "worse" (in CO2 terms) not just once but at least several times, and not just for 100 years but for thousands and millions of years.

Yet, they're still here.

If you don't think that's relevant, then you don't know what's relevant.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 3 months ago | (#47193131)

s/attributed to pH/attributed to pH changes due to CO2

If you were sane... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47193275)

You'd be fascinating. As it is? Not so much.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 3 months ago | (#47193069)

What does that have to do with anything? An ancestor of a lifeform from the Cambrian era 500 million years ago evolved to survive in the environment of 500 million years ago. That has no bearing on whether a descendant

WHOOSH...

It was presumed that participants in this discussion would possess both a certain amount of scientific literacy, AND some background on the issue.

So, to supply that deficiency (which I am not obligated to do): the basic argument that has been presented is that the acidification of the oceans via dissolved CO2 would harm sea life that depends on calciferous body parts. (Bivalves, for example, with their calciferous shells, and coral with its calciferous communal "skeleton".)

The reality, however, is that these creatures have survived long periods (thousands or even millions of years) of both higher CO2 levels and higher oceanic pH levels. Without noticeable damage.

I am NOT arguing that human changes to the environment are favorable. I am simply pointing out that these Earth creatures have been through far worse (for humans) conditions in the past and seem little the worse for wear. So if we want to be concerned, we should probably point our concerns elsewhere.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 3 months ago | (#47193081)

Pardon me. Higher pH should have been higher acidity = lower pH.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (1)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | about 3 months ago | (#47193153)

The reality, however, is that these creatures have survived long periods (thousands or even millions of years) of both higher CO2 levels and higher oceanic pH levels. Without noticeable damage.

I believe the proper reply to you is "WHOOSH..." yet again!

I understand the details you replied with, but you still completely missed the point.

You stated originally: "But coral evolved when it was both warmer than it is now, AND the concentration of CO2 was many times what it is today."

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the logical chain of your argument as presented is something like, "Earth was different 500 million years ago. Coral evolved in that environment. The environment today is less extreme. THEREFORE, even IF big changes that return back to something closer to the environment of 500 million years ago happen, the coral should be able to survive and thrive."

Isn't that your argument?

Now my problem is: "These creatures" (i.e., the ones existing NOW, at the PRESENT TIME) are not necessarily the EXACT SAME ONES living 500 million years ago. So, unless you have some sort of genetic evidence showing those ancient coral are basically equivalent to modern coral (which they aren't), the conditions of the earth 500 million years ago have no bearing on whether coral today could survive under the same conditions.

I am NOT arguing that human changes to the environment are favorable. I am simply pointing out that these Earth creatures have been through far worse (for humans) conditions in the past and seem little the worse for wear.

But not necessarily RAPID changes happening over a number of decades, rather than over millennia or millions of years. Most descendants of lifeforms that lived 500 million years ago have lost adaptations to thrive in the more extreme conditions of that time. So why should we assume that coral should be different?

Now -- if you have evidence that this coral (i.e., "these creatures," the ones that are living now, not 500 million years ago) can survive and thrive in the new conditions, say from reefs that are already located in places with these conditions and have done well, or from experimental evidence subjecting coral to such conditions, that's great. THAT would be evidence that "these creatures" will continue to survive and thrive.

But until I see THAT sort of evidence, I would tend to assume that creatures today do NOT necessarily have adaptations to thrive well under conditions of 500 million years ago. They might. But lots of lifeforms don't.

I hope you see the logical problem here.

Again, if there is actual evidence that MODERN coral (not millions of years ago coral) can do well under these diverging conditions, that's great. Otherwise, the argument is not valid, since there are plenty of exceptions of lifeforms which have decreased in number or have gone extinct due to minor changes in conditions -- conditions which some random 500-million-year-old ancestor might have been quite happy with.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 3 months ago | (#47191445)

except these corals already wouldn't be there if we didn't dig this trench in the first place.

this reminds me of when to construct a water treatment plant along a river, so they redirect the river to build the plant, then, when the plant was completed a year or two later, "environmentalists" stopped them from restoring the original path of the river so the plant could go into operation because the new path of the river created some wetlands that animals started living in. the plant wound up being abandoned.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47191783)

> this reminds me of

Your post reminds me of idiots who make up random lies in order to rationalize their own bullshit.

In other words, link to it or we know you are the kind of person who does not have a fucking clue what they are talking about.

I make this challenge with 100% confidence that even if you do have a link to share, the actual details will be so different than how you described that you'll still look just as stupid as if you have no link at all.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (2)

davester666 (731373) | about 3 months ago | (#47192281)

https://www.hcn.org/articles/16990/print_view [hcn.org]

And excellent use of "And I will ignore any evidence you may provide". Classic.

Re:Mass extinction waits for no-one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47193983)

" then, when the plant was completed a year or two later, "

Per your link it took 13-22 years, not "a year or two".

" In the 1970s, the salty runoff was diverted into the Cienega... The diversion was supposed to be temporary until a desalination plant could be built... the plant.. was finished in 1992..."

also

"The next year, flooding eliminated the need for plant operations."

And the river was not diverted for the purpose of building the plant. Agricultural runoff was diverted due to salinity, and the plant was meant to correct that issue. It has turned out to largely be not needed. GP is correct that your distortion of the facts changes the story.

These scientists are terrorists (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47191283)

Who cares about coral or the sea? It's better to poison and destroy the whole world so that walmart get it's chinese crap brought in on time.

Re:These scientists are terrorists (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 3 months ago | (#47191471)

Who cares about coral or the sea? It's better to poison and destroy the whole world so that walmart get it's chinese crap brought in on time.

What are your wearing? What kind of phone do you have? What type of computing device do you use? What kind of car/bicycle/motorcycle/mass transit do you use?

My guess is that a great deal of what *YOU* consume, even if you didn't buy it at Wal-Mart, was not made in the United States, and almost certainly was shipped here from... Asia!

If you really want to "put your money where your mouth is", go live on a self-sustaining commune. It's not the 60's anymore, but they still exist.

Re:These scientists are terrorists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47191739)

> If you really want to "put your money where your mouth is", go live on a self-sustaining commune.

Ah, the old canard that the only way to legitimately criticize the system is to completely renounce the system. Aholes like you love that little bit of sophistry because someone who is outside the system, by definition, has no say in changing the system.

Re:These scientists are terrorists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47191825)

Wrong coast, idiot.

we've acquired a bandwagon of wingnuts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47191459)

It's really hurting Slashdot. Would you few everything-denying American dipshits please go back to hotair.com or whatever cesspool you emerged from.

Why the channel in the first place? (0)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 3 months ago | (#47191485)

Miami won't last another century anyway. They could as well leave the corals right where they are. ;-)

Re: Why the channel in the first place? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47191619)

Why waste the money? The melting Antarctic ice sheet will deepen the channel "naturally". Unfortunately, by then the port of Miami will be 10' below sea level.

"Government Cut" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47191543)

How apt a name...

Re:"Government Cut" (1)

Deadstick (535032) | about 3 months ago | (#47191675)

Well, yes...it's a cut in the civil engineering sense, and its excavation was paid for and supervised by the federal government.

Sounds like a bunch of BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47191737)

No other coral can be used for their BS analysis, it must be that coral in that exact spot. Coral simply doesn't exist anywhere else in the waters around south florida, right?

I have been a Floridian for 60 years (0)

Jim Sadler (3430529) | about 3 months ago | (#47192185)

I resent the blazes out of dredging to accommodate bigger ships. If anything we need far less ships here. Ships are a huge air pollution problem. You should see the cartons of cigarettes that people toss off of the cruise ships that wash up on Ft. Lauderdale's beaches. The other item is the tampon inserting tubes. They are plastic and we get all kinds of them in the surf.

Re:I have been a Floridian for 60 years (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 3 months ago | (#47192315)

Yea, because women leave the bathroom in their stateroom BATHROOMS on the cruise ship to throw the tampon tube overboard. They want to make sure everyone knows they have put a tampon in. Cause they are all 12 year old girls. It of course has absolutely nothing to do with where you dump your garbage from those who dwell on land. Just like people who walk out of their staterooms on the ships to throw cig cartons overboard ... instead of in the trash which is right next to them in their staterooms. And its all done by the hundred or so rooms per ship that actually have direct access to the ocean via a balcony where they could get by with dumping without anyone noticing.

And no, the cruise ship isn't dumping it overboard at sea either since thats been illegal for years.

Reality: Its standard municipal garbage that is being improperly dumped off garbage barges and has nothing at all to do with the ships you're blaming.

You resent dredging ... and you post about it ... on the Internet, which is powered by equipment that came from China in a massive cargo ship ... using a router and computer which came in a cargo ship from China ... probably drive to work in your car ... that came to the US in parts from a cargo ship from China.

Get real, if you actually cared you'd have something far more useful to say about the issue.

Yours Truly,
A Floridian of 30 years, ocean lover and boater.

tough shit, coral (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47192407)

I'm so bored with all these BS "endangered species stories. Enough is enough! Some things live, some things die. Deal with it, muthas.

fuck off beta (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47193091)

yes beta sucks

I agree

No worries! (1)

Baussian (3687951) | about 3 months ago | (#47193631)


Struth! You Americans worry too much.
Just contact our Australian Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt, he will be able to explain how mega dredging projects are actually good for the environment [theguardian.com] .

We have the biggest coral reef in the world, one of the 7 Wonders of the Natural World, right on our doorstep... it's been there for about 18 million years. Too bad the bugger is in the way now, blocking access to more profit - ahem, job creation - for Gina [forbes.com] & co.
What's another piece of coral anyway... they'll all be gone soon enough.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>