Dead Oceans by 2048?

[1qa 0]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/salt-water-fish-extinction-seen-by-2048/

[corysold 0]

Sounds a lot like like "The polar ice caps will be melted by 2014."

[jfschellcrna 11]

anybody else up for posting more dumb a$$ articles like ths one........:fish2:

[OklahomaIrish 0]

So many phony studies just to get our money.

[piratey 6]

anybody else up for posting more dumb a$$ articles like ths one........:fish2:

 

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/05/07/600-page-litany-of-doom-weather-channel-co-founder-john-coleman-slams-obama-climate-report-a-total-distortion-of-the-data-and-agenda-driven-destructive-episode-of-bad-science-gone-berserk/

 

 

Key facts about global temperature:

The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 213 months from August 1996 to April 2014. That is more than half the entire 423-month satellite record.

The fastest centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº per century – before the industrial revolution began. It cannot have been our fault.

The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.

The fastest warming trend lasting ten years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England. It was equivalent to 4.3 Cº per century.

Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend is equivalent to 1.2 Cº per century.

The fastest warming rate lasting ten years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.

In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of the near-term warming trend was equivalent to 3.5 Cº per century.

The global warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to 1.4 Cº per century – two-fifths of what the IPCC had then predicted.

In 2013 the IPCC’s new mid-range prediction of the near-term warming trend was for warming at a rate equivalent to 1.7 Cº per century – just half its 1990 prediction.

Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its centennial warming prediction of 3.7 Cº warming to 2100 on business as usual.

The IPCC’s prediction of 3.7 Cº warming by 2100 is more than twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than ten years that has been measured since 1950.

The IPCC’s 3.7 Cº-by-2100 prediction is more than three times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950.

Since 1 January 2001, the dawn of the new millennium, the warming trend on the dataset of five major datasets is zero – 0.0 Cº per century. No warming for 13 years 3 months.

Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.

[nd1baby 0]

We need a war on global warming and climate change. Time to put Mother Nature in her place.

[Parseghians theorem 0]

dem fish need to get F&*KING!!

[Rocketsan 773]

So many phony studies just to get our money.

 

Says the guy who has inundated us with chemtrails research...

[piratey 6]

Do you trust your weatherman to tell you the weather 5 days from now? Do you trust them to tell you the weather 30 days from now? How about 30 years from now?

[indyirishdad 0]

The fish story is dumb, but some of you DON'T believe in global warming?

[nickman54 0]

And go!

[corysold 0]

The fish story is dumb, but some of you DON'T believe in global warming?

 

Correct.

 

To clarify, some don't believe in man-made global warming, or "climate change" as they call it now.

[piratey 6]

The fish story is dumb, but some of you DON'T believe in global warming?

 

No one calls it global warming any more, because there has been no warming. No one calls it climate change anymore, because the climate is always changing. So now, they are calling it "Global Climate Disruption." I wish I was making this stuff up...

 

The fish story is just a microcosm of the Chicken Little sky is falling approach they are taking to scare people into accepting higher taxes to line the pockets of their backers.

[TheRizz 5]

No one calls it global warming any more, because there has been no warming. No one calls it climate change anymore, because the climate is always changing. So now, they are calling it "Global Climate Disruption." I wish I was making this stuff up...

 

The fish story is just a microcosm of the Chicken Little sky is falling approach they are taking to scare people into accepting higher taxes to line the pockets of their backers.

 

Great post. Just a way for donors to be stroked, more rules and regulations, and less jobs to choke the economy.

[indyirishdad 0]

No one calls it global warming any more, because there has been no warming. No one calls it climate change anymore, because the climate is always changing. So now, they are calling it "Global Climate Disruption." I wish I was making this stuff up...

 

The fish story is just a microcosm of the Chicken Little sky is falling approach they are taking to scare people into accepting higher taxes to line the pockets of their backers.

 

Fair enough. What about the connection with deforestation?

[piratey 6]

Great post. Just a way for donors to be stroked, more rules and regulations, and less jobs to choke the economy.

 

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/DOE-loan-losses4.jpg

 

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/realspin/files/2012/11/image001.jpg

[davislove 0]

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/DOE-loan-losses4.jpg

 

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/realspin/files/2012/11/image001.jpg

 

Im all for job creation. Im a democrat (don't shoot) but I dont buy the climate change.

[piratey 6]

Im all for job creation. Im a democrat (don't shoot) but I dont buy the climate change.

 

No shootin' needed! I think that's the biggest problem these days is the vitriol and furor that both sides seem to have for each other. I like tossin' on my fiscally conservative/socially liberal hat and shake my heads at both sides.

[hawaiiirish 62]

We are very sensitive to the oceans out here and I must admit I am somewhat SHOCKED by the level of DENIAL on this thread. It seems every negative effect of 7 billion humans aggressively exploiting every resource on the planet is just some joke to cause alarm for some political agenda.

 

Wow that is not clear thinking IMO. I understand that global warming or climate change is a hot topic and in the US is disputed by conservative ideology , claims of larger forces, bigger trends, past climate shifts etc assemble into a picture of climate change only slightly effected by human activity and driven mostly by other forces not related to us.

 

However the decline of life in the ocean simply does NOT lend itself to such arguments. The ocean is NOT some self regulating system that is immune from human activity. The whales used to fill the channel between maui and the other islands, the search for blubber and lamp oil brought them to near extinction and we have struggled very hard to bring them back to these low but hopefully sustainable levels ( when I was younger living on the island of lanai my wife and I got involved in the whale count for many years and it was so rewarding to watch them come back, albeit slowly under global protection).

 

To deny the loss & collapse of the oceans fisheries and the planets reefs is simply spitting into the wind. You might as well sit down with your children and tell them not to worry about the lions and tigers and bears that they are just doing fine and will be frolicking through the forests forever, and anything they here to the contrary is simply a political agenda.

 

Oceans have already seen severe declines in harvests from many fisheries over the last 30 years--and what has the answer been---BETTER AND MORE AGGRESSIVE MEANS OF HARVESTING AND A LARGER AREA TO HARVEST FROM-----

 

2+2 = 4 and you don't need a political agenda to see that---we are bringing out more fish then the ocean can replace and have been for decades---J Cousteau one of the first to go down and actually look beneath the ocean was not an optimistic fella at his death--he saw the decline--a large decline in sea life just in the few short decades he lived through.

 

Fisheries for Bluefin tuna, orange roughy, Chilean sea bass are all in collapse--common sense tells us we will see exactly what we saw on land---the larger fish & animals will decline first and the most steeply as we have already seen--but all the fisheries are now at risk.

 

The idea that the ocean can supply UNLIMIMITED RESOURCES FOR AN UNLIMITED TIME is the "ostrich" view.

 

We can slow this if not totally fix it---aquaculture, protection of reefs, fishing regulations especially on the HUGE COMMERCIAL FLEETS THAT TAKE BILLIONS OF POUNDS OF EVEN UNWANTED FISH THEY THROW AWAY---etc---

 

We can do at least what we have done for the whales---try to stabilize the issues somewhat and protect some of the fisheries from collapse.

 

Climate change is a broad issue, the workings of the atmosphere are complicated, and the history of the planets temperature can be confusing.

 

Not so for life in the ocean---this is not complex at all--it is simply GROSS MATH --there is an UBER HIGH DEMAND for fish protein--we have developed commercial fishing techniques that have adapted to falling supply NOT BY BACKING OFF till the fish replenish but by finding technology that simply harvests more broadly from the diminishing supply.

 

Every worry about our planets environment is not some scam to empower anti-capitalist forces--- I can see how that may be a comforting view that requires no response by society and no concern by the individual but it is short sighted and simply not true.

 

aloha's

Edited May 7, 2014 by hawaiiirish

[Parseghians theorem 0]

hey hawaii, i'm coming to hawaii in four days.