Monday morning environmental irony alert

White-SharkBe careful what you wish for; you might get it.

First story:  Even as they’re trapped in impenetrable summer ice in the Antarctic, global warming fanatics insist that sea ice is disappearing.  A 1912 video reveals that it’s disappeared before, and that it undoubtedly will again — only not this year.

Second story:  The San Francisco Bay is cleaner than it’s been since the Gold Rush days.  Yay, right?  No.  More sunlight penetrating the water has resulted in damaging algae growth.  Whoops.

Third story:  Another environmental success story has resulted in more sharks sharing beach waters with people.  I wonder how many people will hang onto their environmental chops when every local beach looks like a set for Jaws.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

    The Gaian’s real goals is to destroy humanity and then the Earth. Because without a life form able to build technological methods to expand life through the universe or defense measures against anti life from the universe, this Earth will perish eventually.
     

  2. jj says

    Careful what you wish for indeed.  I hear this kind of stuff and occasionally find myself wondering about the back story.  The Bay’s cleaner than ever, but now you have “damaging” algae growth.  A couple of questions spring to mind.   (1) What is being “damaged” by proliferating algae?  (2) What was the Bay like before the first Man ever laid eyes thereon?  Could you walk across it on the algae?  Was it choked by algae?  Is “choked by algae” its true natural state?  (3) Does the Bay currently suffer from the lack of something, something natural that once existed there in abundance, and kept the algae in check?  (4) If the answer to (3) is “yes,” is that thing now missing because people have somehow killed it off?
     
    I always wonder about stuff like this, because it seems to me we never get more than half the story.  If the Bay is now clean, and there’s now too much algae, does that mean “hip-deep in algae” is the Bay’s natural state?  (Maybe the Bay always was a foetid mud-slough, and we just didn’t know it, because we think it’s picturesque.)  Does anybody know, or is this all BS to one degree or another?
     
    I got no problem with the sharks.  I’m on the sharks’ side in this one, in fact.  Given that our Oriental friends seem to find it necessary to kill tens of thousands of them ever year so they can have a goddam bowl of soup – using no other part of the animal’s body, just chopping off the dorsal fin – I hope the beaches the sharks hang around are mostly in the Orient.  And I wish them luck.
     
    The un-knowability of climate ructions offers everyone an opportunity to look like a horse’s patoot at some time.  The climate is unquestionably changing, but that’s like pointing out the sun will be up tomorrow morning: the climate’s always changing.  A system in perpetual flux.  It’s amusing (schadenfreude, again) to watch a shipload of scientists get stuck in the summer ice, but they seem to be handling it with an abundance of good humor, so possibly they’ll learn something.  Mostly what they’ll learn is how much they don’t know.  Can’t hurt.

  3. lee says

    You know, IPCC claims that the oceans will rise between 7 and 23 inches over this century. The tides in SF Bay vary about 7 feet. The changes depend on neap vs. srping, whether there is some sort of storm surge coming from the ocean, or high runoff coming from the mountains. In the grand scheme of 7 feet, 7 inches seems pretty minor. Twenty-three inches could be more problematic, but I suspect that even if that WERE to happen, it wouldn’t happen overnight, and probably not for another 96 years. Which gives us NINETY-SIX years to rebuild that area of 101 that floods during a really high tide by Larkspur. Why do the CLIMATE ALARMISTS make it sound like we are ALL GOING TO BE LIVING UNDER WATER?
     
    Okay, where I live right now, in the South Carolina’s Low Country, I might be in a bit of trouble–IF I WERE STILL ALIVE IN 96 YEARS. Seeing as how the dashboard of my SUV is 6 feet above sea level in my driveway. (And we’re about 32 miles from the ocean. They don’t call it “Low Country” for nothin’!)
     
    Anyhow, why can BEAVERS (Castor canadensis) get away with totally disrupting an ecosystem with their damns, while human are total jackasses for modifying their ecosystem to help themselves out?
     
    I do think that jj has some pretty good points above–What WAS the Bay like before?
     
    Of course, after the Drakes Bay Oyster Company thing, I should think more people would realize that lies, fraud and deceit are all essential tools of the Gang Green tool box.
     
    Sigh…

  4. Blick4343 says

    RE the enviro-tourists stuck in the antarctic ice. Having three ships attempt a rescue, their carbon footprint is not quadrupled. If they run out of food, they can always eat crow. 

  5. Charles Martel says

    “If they run out of food, they can always eat crow.”
     
    Blick, good one!
     
    San Francisco Bay is the largest marine estuary on the west coast of North America. When the Spaniards arrived, it covered about 700 square miles. After four centuries of settlement, massive gold rush-era silt runoff from the Sierra, dredging, salt mining, and draining, the bay today covers about 400 square miles.
     
    In 1965, the San Francisco Chronicle ran a highly acclaimed wake-up call about the bay’s parlous state, a call to action that began a now 49-year cleanup effort. The effect has been to slowly turn some diked lands back to estuary status, and a massive cleanup of industrial runoff and wastes. So, yes, the bay is cleaner than it was 20 or 40 years ago in the sense that people aren’t directly poisoning it with manufacturing dross and chemicals.
     
    But the bay still is where runoff from rain and used water from households and offices end up. Algae thrive in highly oxygenated environments, and much of what enters the bay from those sources creates ideal conditions for them. The only way to restore the bay to a pristine state is to remove the 5 million people who live within 10 miles of its shoreline and ban its use as a waste receptacle or for commerce. Not gonna happen.

    • Blick4343 says

      Charles,  but, but, but, I thought humans were just evolved animals and therefore ALL that humans do is natural and part of nature.  Therefore, human waste of all kinds is natural and not “pollution”.  Agreed, that too many animals in restricted space will use up all the food resources and fill the space with their waste. However, that is a natural consequence of over population of a habitat which is not sustainable.  The environ-controlists of SanFran will have to reduce their numbers to sustainable levels by finding other unoccupied habitat, conquering other occupied habitat and reducing the occupants, or reducing their own numbers by attrition. I suppose they could invent some technology to manage their waste, (like they use to supply food and resources) that’s also natural to humans. Its all in the name of sustainable habitat, don’t ya know? 

  6. Danny Lemieux says

    I attended a university by a lake that had problems with algae blooms. The university’s limnology department determined that it was not phosphate or nitrogen from agricultural runoff that was the problem, but the balance of the two. The (counterintuitive) solution to the blooms was to add more phosphate or more nitrogen to restore the balance of the two, not to attempt the impossible by stopping all runoffs. Of course, that set the environmentalists’ teeth a’gnashing.

Leave a Reply