Coral reef article - Dire prediction for world's coral reefs

[NateHanson]

I think I agree with everything there (especially the wings).

I just wish people were given a better science education. I think that would go a long way.

 

[RobboT]

I think I agree with everything there (especially the wings).

I just wish people were given a better science education. I think that would go a long way.

Education, science or otherwise, honestly is our biggest failure as a society. Our educational systems are great by past measures but not nearly up to par with the pace of information gathering.

 

[Matt L.]

As far as science goes, if a paper is not peer reviewed, it doesn't mean squat.

To follow up with what Nate said, I think the de-education of America and the frightening lack of scientific education has allowed people who are otherwise inately intelligent to be swayed by non-peer reviewed sources with a political agenda.

Matt

 

[Matt L.]

Education, science or otherwise, honestly is our biggest failure as a society. Our educational systems are great by past measures but not nearly up to par with the pace of information gathering.

The Pentagon issued a report not too long ago warning the Government that our deemphasis of education, in particular our failure to properly educate in math, science, and engineering, is leading to a growing national security concern.

This is just me, but I don't believe Al Qaida is our biggest enemy. I believe that our greatest threat to being #1 comes from our failure to produce enough engineers, mathematicians, and scientists. I spend much time worrying that other nations will eventually just out compete us.

Tomorrow is going to be a technocratic society, and we those with the smartest people are going to win.

Matt

 

[RichConley]

Honestly, I think a lot of the de-education of america has to do with the "nobody can fail" mentality. The bright kids are never really challenged at any point, until they hit college, and by that point, they've lost any desire to sit in class.

There are plenty of kids out there who can handle complex geometry, trig, and even low level calculus in 5th and 6th grade, and yet it isnt even offered to them till they hit their soph/junior year of highschool. We take the years where these kids are most capable of learning (brains work much better when we're really young) and make them sit through hours of worthless drivel, and dont give them anything challenging. (we spend 6 months on multiplication tables in either 1st or second grade... is that needed?)

I think we need more tracks in education. Theres no reason a kid who can do trig in 5th grade should be in the same classes as a kid who is still having trouble with the basics. It hurts both of them. That may just be a "class sizes" issue though.

 

[RobboT]

The Pentagon issued a report not too long ago warning the Government that our deemphasis of education, in particular our failure to properly educate in math, science, and engineering, is leading to a growing national security concern.

This is just me, but I don't believe Al Qaida is our biggest enemy. I believe that our greatest threat to being #1 comes from our failure to produce enough engineers, mathematicians, and scientists. I spend much time worrying that other nations will eventually just out compete us.

Tomorrow is going to be a technocratic society, and we those with the smartest people are going to win.

Matt

I would agree. My wife had a friend who wanted to take her 13 year old daughter back to Japan but couldnt because she'd have had to start about 2 grades back.

There was also a report, not sure if I heard it here or in Kuwait, that Al Qaida is specifically recruiting engineers and scientists. Not that I like harping on the whole Al Qaida thing because striking fear in people is exactly how the current US administration, Hussain and Kim Jong Il get thier way . . . but thats a scary thought.

 

[RobboT]

I think we need more tracks in education. Theres no reason a kid who can do trig in 5th grade should be in the same classes as a kid who is still having trouble with the basics. It hurts both of them. That may just be a "class sizes" issue though.

I agree Rich the problem is where does the money for that come from? Should the goal be to provide each individual kid the education he/she needs to excel or to provide an "adequate" education the largest percentage of the population. In Canton where I live we, like most towns I imagine, are having issues with education dollars. The big issue for next year is that there are some special needs kids (1 or 2 kids) coming into the system next year that will require the town to spend $350k for them specifically. Unless we get a prop 2.5 override they will need to cut 2 positions and make some other changes to make up the gap between the money they get from the government and what Canton needs to chip in. Before someone calls me a heartless @$%#@ my point is not that we shouldnt help special needs kids, everyone deserves a public education. My point is that when you provide specialized service to any one group you put the largest percentage of the population at a disadvantage (i.e., we're going to spend $350k on those 1 or 2 kids where the average student expenditure for most students is less than $10k). It would work on the other end too for gifted kids. Honestly if my daughter was gifted I woudn't expect the state to deal with that, Id take it on myself to make sure she got what she needed.

 

[RichConley]

Robbo, the special needs kids brings the point up real well. Why is it more important that the special needs kid is brought up to average, than the gifted child is brought to their potential?


$350K? Thats insane. I know they generally have a dedicated employee, but whats that, $45K?

As much as it sounds kind of awful, maybe the best idea is to have special needs kids going to school with other children who have similar needs, regardless of municipality. It would certainly save some $$.

 

[RobboT]

I thought it sounded crazy too. Im sure it might be partially inflated to help gain sympathy votes but still. Sadly our fearless leader GWB may have been on to something a bit by the thought on allowing people to get back some of the govt education dollars that would have gone to their kids if they put their kids in private school. I honestly dont like the idea of private school but if I thought my daughter was gifted I might feel differently.

Just on the flip side, trying to deal with accelerated learning in public schools doesnt always work either. I know people who were in an accelerated program from grade 4 on, did the AP Chemistry and Calculus thing in high school and honestly felt more isolated as a result than anything. Intellectually its great, socially it sucks.

 

[RobboT]

The problem in Canton is compounded by a decent sized senior population that wants a new senior center but doesnt want the property tax increase. We have one of the lowest tax rates in the area so i really dont mind paying more. People on a fixed income do though.

 

[RobboT]

Honestly, I think a lot of the de-education of america has to do with the "nobody can fail" mentality. The bright kids are never really challenged at any point, until they hit college, and by that point, they've lost any desire to sit in class.

Curious that nobody comented on that coment Rich. That is a key problem with today's society. Soccer games where they dont have goalies or keep score, T-Ball where you get as many swings as you need to get a hit. My daughter came home with a 104% on a test yesterday . . . there were no bonus questions. 104% what is that? Mayeb she did better than anyone in the class on that test and maybe Im being harsh but what is there to strive toward if you're already scoring over 100%?

Everything is getting graded on a scale it seems. I dont even feel that great about having my PE registration. You only need a 68% to pass. How do you feel knowing that the guy who designed the Zakim Bridge or the Fort Point Channel Tunnel only got a 68% to be certified as a Structural Engineer? Kinda makes sense that the panels fell doesnt it?

 

[RichConley]

I have a serious problem with that. I kind of experienced it a little myself academicaly. I always did well, and didnt put any effort in, and then I hit college, and hit a wall. I kind of feel that my never being challenged, and never being given something I couldnt do was partially responsible for that.

I feel like the no score sports are like that on a social level. You're not saving the kid from dissapointment, you're just pushing it back and amplifying. If a teacher had thrown an exam at me that I couldnt pass in 7th grade, it wouldnt have been a big issue. Instead, I hit it in my sophomore year of my engineering curriculum, and it was a huge issue, and still affects me today (as far as jobs/payscale, etc go)

The kids who suck at sports are going to find out. Its just that the more you build them up, and the more you tell them theyre ok, the harder that fall is gonna be.

MattL:
I think that might be slightly inaccurate. I can't be sure, though, since I'd have to see the original source. I'm not doubting you, but here's what I know:

The largest (terrestrial?) carbon sink is the Amazon rain forest, which is being deforested. The second largest is the Congo Basin Equitorial Forest Sub-region.

Basically, airflow over the US goes west to east. The carbon dioxide levels right before they hit california are much higher than they are when the air comes off the east coast. Right now, southeast asia is the highest CO2 producer (china industrializing isnt helping).

Yes, old growth forests hold tons of carbon, but new growth, and smaller ground cover absorbs carbon at a higher rate. An oaktree may only add 1% mass during a year, while a small shrub, or pine tree, or weed may add a couple hundred percent.

Basically, forests with old trees hold more carbon, forests with young trees assimilate carbon faster

 

[Matt L.]

...Right now, southeast asia is the highest CO2 producer (china industrializing isnt helping)....

This assertion is regrettably incorrect.

We are the worst anthropogenic carbon dioxide emitter, in total and per capita

I think the CO2 emissions from Southeast Asia may be growing the fastest, but as you see, China and the EU are distant seconds, and India is fourth. We are 4.5% of the Worlds population, and we emit 24% of the anthropogenic 2.

Even if you add China, India, and JApan together, you don't exceed the US CO2 emissions.

...Basically, airflow over the US goes west to east. The carbon dioxide levels right before they hit california are much higher than they are when the air comes off the east coast.

Again, I'd have to see the source on this. My instinct tells me that this isn't true.

There just simply isn't enough vegetation in the U.S. to offset our production.

I mean, we are the largest emitter, and the largest sink isn't here, so how can we have a negative impact?

Don't get me wrong... I wish we were a negative carbon source, and I believe we will be one day. I just don't believe it will come without major lifestyle adjustments on our part.

Matt

 

[RichConley]

The Amazon is not the biggest carbon sink. Its the biggest carbon store.

Here's a google on America being a carbon sink http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/pr98/oct98/noaa98-67.html

The original article was in Science, IIRC.

 

[Yaktop]

Oh, don't you dare turn my thread into a liberal political thread or I'll have it locked!

so you were close. this thread was turned into a liberal political thread, just not be my

 

[Stimpy]

My .02
RECYCLE.... RECYCLE... RECYCLE....

MY KIDS GOTTA GROW UP ON THIS PLANET TOO.....

All of us who put out our recycle bins each week are only 2% of recyclables at considerable expense
Gov has to REQUIRE business to recycle or pay. BUS=85% landfilled recyclables.
The average home (if disciplined) can recycle 95% of trash.

 

[JavaJones]

Hi Rich,

The article you cite does not point out that North America is a _net_ CO2 sink. Its data ends in 92-93; 94 was a very different year. One of the authors, Pieter Tans, has gone on to raise the alarms about net increases in the amount of CO2 being emitted by human activity:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4395817.stm

http://www.getboulder.com/visitors/articles-f06/climate-change7.html

 

[Gina McReeferson]

My .02
RECYCLE.... RECYCLE... RECYCLE....

Just something to think about, I read this a while ago so it is not fresh in my head but if you like I will track it down and give more concrete facts.

Roadside recycling could be more harm than good for the environment...

More pollution is created through collection activities for residential recycling than is prevented. Through the emmisions of the collection vehicles and the waste created by their maintenance. A truly beneficial recycling program would require more initiative on the part of the people and a genuine effort, the current system is a fool's errand.

The amount of money spent on such activities could provide much greater benefit through other initiatives, it is however a very popular political item, and God help the politician that suggests taking money away from the household recycling efforts and putting them into something actually "effective". Those hauling companies aren't complaining of course...

Often when recycling is argued, people point to EPA studies showing shrinking landfill capacity. The EPA has however acknowledged that their studies were flawed, the statistics they used were based on the number of operating landfills and not their capacities, it has since been found that landfill capacity is actually growing everyday rather than shrinking as the EPA studies had originally suggested.

All I can remember for now, maybe give you some more after this Mai-tai wears off.

-Dave

 

[RobboT]

I was thinking about this on the ride home and back to the coral reef issue (really applies to any habitat but this is a reef forum ) . . .

What do we hope to gain by reversing the damage done? Is the goal to set the reefs back to expanding? Same goes for any other habitat. Are we trying to get the earth's atmosphere into some kind of steady state that we can manage like our little glass boxes? If the goal is to get the forests back and reefs back . . . back to what state? I guess Im back on the "pessimism about humans continual quest to play God" thing but I was just wondering what the goals are of those who want to reverse things.

 

[RobboT]

Interesting you bring that "recycling is a myth" thing up Dave. I think much of that will be cast off as bad science . . . all except the EPA admitting they inadvertently started a landfill scare. I saw a Penn & Teller Bull--- show where they interviewed the guy who wrote the EPA document on the landfills. Of course getting my scientific data from Penn & Teller adds a new twist to this whole thing but that show they said that it causes more pollution to recycle a plastic bag than it does to make a new one. True or not (they didnt reference any scientific data) my gut feel on recycling is similar to that of environmental cleanup . . . all solutions are net zero benefit. That is any benefit we'd get by not making a new bag is countered by the efforts to recycle the existing bag. But it makes people feel good about themselves so if its a net zero then why not do it Eventually it will be a net benefit I think so good to get in the habit now.