Dead Oceans by 2048?

[piratey 6]

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

 

Unless you're willing to cull the worlds population, there isn't much we can do And the fact of the matter is, local policies in America are a drop in the bucket. Not with China and Japan essentially owning the seas and seafood comsumption

 

 

Edit: http://news.yahoo.com/vietnam-chinese-ships-ram-vessels-near-oil-rig-134607409.html;_ylt=AwrBJR7GdmpT6SwAQMnQtDMD

 

That's what I'm talking about

Edited May 7, 2014 by piratey

[Scotty88 0]

I must admit I am somewhat SHOCKED by the level of DENIAL on this thread.

 

denial is better than stupidity, but that was a different thread lol

[TheRizz 5]

Thought this was good enough to post here. Everything has become about money. Always follow the money. As far as I'm concerned, the only government that can be trusted is less government.

 

Billionaire and former fossil fuel investor Tom Steyer recently announced plans to use his organization, Next Generation Climate Action, to inject millions of dollars into the 2014 election. Steyer, No. 1,031 on Forbes magazine’s billionaire’s list, has previously funded Virginia Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s 2013 campaign and run questionable ads slamming the proposed Keystone pipeline.

 

The New York Times reported on Feb. 18 that Steyer intends to “pressure federal and state officials to enact climate change measures through a hard-edge campaign of attack ads.”

 

Steyer called together dozens of rich liberals and environmentalists earlier this month, in an attempt to raise $50 million to push climate alarmism, according to the Times. He also pledged to match this goal with $50 million of his own. His campaign might top $100 million, however, as Steyer suggested that “would be a really cheap price.”

 

Steyer has focused heavily on opposing the Keystone XL pipeline. The DailyCaller reported in October 2013, that Steyer had donated $1.8 million to a super PAC promoting anti-Keystone political candidates in 2013, in addition to a $1 million ad campaign against the pipeline.

[jessemoore97 1,291]

Love this video by Carlin.

 

[ame]

[/ame]

 

Here's one from Penn and Teller that I find amusing as well.

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXkGzbwkMic[/ame]

[jessemoore97 1,291]

I think people have a hard time distinguishing climate change from environmental stewardship. We have a vested interest in keeping our habitat as habitable as possible meaning clean water is good and picking up our trash/waste products is good because the alternative is disease etc which is bad for us.

 

Over fishing/hunting and not using sound agricultural practices causes a shortage to our food supply which obviously causes numerous other problems. But these problems have nothing to do with global climate change or whatever term they are calling it nowadays. As Carlin says,"the planets fine, the people are f*ed". If we make our habitat unsustainable for our way of life than we will die out. Life will go on in one form or another because life will adapt and overcome as it has for billions of years and facing far harsher environments than anything we are producing currently or in the near future.

[nd1baby 0]

Education about environmental stewardship is a fine thing. I'm all for it. But that is not the direction many environmentalists have decided to go. They saw people are emotionally vulnerable to environmental pleas and got very greedy. The alarmism and inaccurate predictions about global warming has caused some people to tune out and doubt environmentalism in general.

[Irish_Convert 1]

Corysold, I believe they were actually supposed to be ice free in the summer of 2013.

 

Global warming, climate change, whatever label you want to smack on it does exist but man made? Nah. When a winter like we just had happens, you hear two things: Weather isn't climate and it's due to climate change. When we have heat waves or severe weather, you don't hear weather isn't climate but you're told it's due to climate change. They keep on changing their story, over and over.

 

The entire premise is based on human CO2 emissions being the primary driving force for warming/climate change which is outright ludicrous when there are so many other factors to be taken into consideration.

 

Much of their "evidence" is based on proxy data such as ice core samples, which sometimes contradict their assertions and things like tree ring analysis, which is often cherry picked to fit the narrative. Most "legitimate" climate scientists are state funded at least to some degree so they have an incentive to follow that narrative as well as placing personal social ideology over the science itself.

 

Modern human "civilization" only dates back maybe 10,000, 12,000 years, a pittance compared to the length of time the earth has existed. We've only been able to even accurately measure temperature for maybe 5 percent of that time. We wail about the prospect of the Arctic ice cap disappearing when we've only been measuring it accurately with satellites for less than 40 years.

 

Another thing about modern civilization is, we've grown less nomadic as we've gained control over energy sources. We live in areas that once couldn't be lived in year round so we're numb to the idea of what many peoples had to deal with, a migratory lifestyle. We slap names on communities and pretend they've been around since the dawn of time.

 

We settle in areas that are prone to natural disasters and stubbornly stay no matter how many times those communities are devastated. We blame it on climate change even though those same disasters occurred well before humans settled there. We arrogantly believe we can tame the earth and it's resources then wail and moan when the earth says "You're mere ants crawling across my surface".

 

We talk about the extinction of species when more species have gone extinct than exist today. Man didn't cause their demise, the earth and it's environment did.

 

Humans like things neat and tidy, the way they remember them when they or their parents were younger. They don't care that ocean fossils are found on mountain tops or that the Sahara region was once a lush tropical zone. The east coast of North America was once embedded in Africa. They want things to stay the way they've always known them but it just doesn't work that way. The earth doesn't stop changing just because we popped up on the surface and decided to stay awhile.

 

Enough. /Rant

[jfschellcrna 11]

the world is covered by 71% water......some up to 6 miles deep.....so vast we lost a huge plane without a trace......stewardship i completely agree with, but somehow i think the fish will survive.......

[Donjuan 16]

Corysold, I believe they were actually supposed to be ice free in the summer of 2013.

 

Global warming, climate change, whatever label you want to smack on it does exist but man made? Nah. When a winter like we just had happens, you hear two things: Weather isn't climate and it's due to climate change. When we have heat waves or severe weather, you don't hear weather isn't climate but you're told it's due to climate change. They keep on changing their story, over and over.

 

The entire premise is based on human CO2 emissions being the primary driving force for warming/climate change which is outright ludicrous when there are so many other factors to be taken into consideration.

 

Much of their "evidence" is based on proxy data such as ice core samples, which sometimes contradict their assertions and things like tree ring analysis, which is often cherry picked to fit the narrative. Most "legitimate" climate scientists are state funded at least to some degree so they have an incentive to follow that narrative as well as placing personal social ideology over the science itself.

 

Modern human "civilization" only dates back maybe 10,000, 12,000 years, a pittance compared to the length of time the earth has existed. We've only been able to even accurately measure temperature for maybe 5 percent of that time. We wail about the prospect of the Arctic ice cap disappearing when we've only been measuring it accurately with satellites for less than 40 years.

 

Another thing about modern civilization is, we've grown less nomadic as we've gained control over energy sources. We live in areas that once couldn't be lived in year round so we're numb to the idea of what many peoples had to deal with, a migratory lifestyle. We slap names on communities and pretend they've been around since the dawn of time.

 

We settle in areas that are prone to natural disasters and stubbornly stay no matter how many times those communities are devastated. We blame it on climate change even though those same disasters occurred well before humans settled there. We arrogantly believe we can tame the earth and it's resources then wail and moan when the earth says "You're mere ants crawling across my surface".

 

We talk about the extinction of species when more species have gone extinct than exist today. Man didn't cause their demise, the earth and it's environment did.

 

Humans like things neat and tidy, the way they remember them when they or their parents were younger. They don't care that ocean fossils are found on mountain tops or that the Sahara region was once a lush tropical zone. The east coast of North America was once embedded in Africa. They want things to stay the way they've always known them but it just doesn't work that way. The earth doesn't stop changing just because we popped up on the surface and decided to stay awhile.

 

Enough. /Rant

 

Very nice well-thought out rant...

[jessemoore97 1,291]

Education about environmental stewardship is a fine thing. I'm all for it. But that is not the direction many environmentalists have decided to go. They saw people are emotionally vulnerable to environmental pleas and got very greedy. The alarmism and inaccurate predictions about global warming has caused some people to tune out and doubt environmentalism in general.

 

I agree 100%. The initiatives that were brought on years ago to clean up the water supply, to stop the use of pesticides that were contaminating the water and ground, soil conservation such as no tilling fields, cleaning up the garbage, recycling, etc were all sound ideas that have had positive impacts.

 

But things like these green credits are nothing more than the indulgences handed out by the Church years ago, as Penn and Teller referred to. Its a scam plan and simple, and it makes big money for those who are involved in it like the Al Gores of the world. Both sides argue until their blue in the face about how the other is wrong, but nothing is actually changing and the Al Gores and his ilk keep laughing all the way to the bank.

[1qa 0]

I think the lines are pretty well drawn on this board... and it is really divided between

 

A. Those who "believe" there is no impending environmental disaster, certainly not due to human behavior, and that the immense diversity of nature can adapt because we've had 6 prior extinction events... and look... we're still here.

 

B. Those who "believe" there is environmental disaster, likely not for adults of today, but certainly for our children and grandchildren. I personally believe the world will a less rich and hospitable place for my grandchildren.

 

Those in Camp A usually point to money and politics, and/or the complexity of climate science, to deny the scientific consensus (greater than 95% of the EXPERTS in the field)... because what are experts except people who are good at making mistakes.

 

As Hawaii pointed out... the DENIAL that there are problems in the environment, or that we have the power to change it, is the greatest challenge.

 

We can't even agree there is a problem. ... because we can't even agree what is a fact.

[DTCBND03 0]

As a republican I'm kinda shocked with the level of denial too. Whether its global warming or global cooling humans are having a HUGE impact on the earth very fast. Too fast for the earth to keep up. The internal combustion engine was one of the best/worst inventions for mankind because now we can drive cross country in 2 days but we can also wipe out the entire Amazon rainforest in a few years if we wanted to. We can motor across the Atlantic or we can fish a species to extinction. Yet people (mostly republicans) deny any form of human impact...only because we have been recording data for last 100 years so how can anyone really know???? Even though cities in China are caked in smog and they had to only allow certain license plate numbers drive on certain days leading up to Beijing Games. Event though the Atlantic cod was overfished to near extinction and may never recover. But we should still strip away all rules and regulations right??? Cause these are ALWAYS job killers. I ran this by Jeff Skilling (ex-Enron CEO) and he agrees...

[DTCBND03 0]

I can't help but laugh that I just wrote that post as I'm watching Deadliest Catch. Awesome show. They have quotas for crab on that show for a reason...so that humans don't fish species to extinction.

 

hawaiiirish - good post. didn't even think about the whales. But according to Irish_Convert it was mother earth shooting those harpoons and not humans.

[OklahomaIrish 0]

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

 

Data doesn't reflect global warming but I personally have witnessed the chemtrails Rocket. It is acknowledged here in Oklahoma on the conservative talk radio shows. Why don't you research it and have an educated opinion.

[1qa 0]

Data doesn't reflect global warming but I personally have witnessed the chemtrails Rocket. It is acknowledged here in Oklahoma on the conservative talk radio shows. Why don't you research it and have an educated opinion.

 

Okie... you are just factually wrong on the point that a "global warming" trend is not observed. It has been measured by many many people and institutions.

 

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/1029

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/09/you-cant-deny-global-warming-after-seeing-this-graph/

[Parseghians theorem 0]

the earth is billions of years old and we use a sample size of the past 132 years?

 

:der::der::der:

[piratey 6]

the earth is billions of years old and we use a sample size of the past 132 years?

 

:der::der::der:

 

Bingo bango. It is the hubris of man to believe we can affect something like this. Quality of water? Quality of breathable air? Deforestation? Absolutely controllable. And something we need to be concerned about. But I am not buying this cash grab of "Global Warming" based on a sample size that is a fraction of a fraction. Hell, my graph I posted on the first page was a better sample size over that 132 period compared to the 132 into billions...

[Tenacious_ND 0]

the world is covered by 71% water......some up to 6 miles deep.....so vast we lost a huge plane without a trace......stewardship i completely agree with, but somehow i think the fish will survive.......

 

no way brah.. chem trails fall into the sea! boom! no more fish.

[jessemoore97 1,291]

As a republican I'm kinda shocked with the level of denial too. Whether its global warming or global cooling humans are having a HUGE impact on the earth very fast. Too fast for the earth to keep up. The internal combustion engine was one of the best/worst inventions for mankind because now we can drive cross country in 2 days but we can also wipe out the entire Amazon rainforest in a few years if we wanted to. We can motor across the Atlantic or we can fish a species to extinction. Yet people (mostly republicans) deny any form of human impact...only because we have been recording data for last 100 years so how can anyone really know???? Even though cities in China are caked in smog and they had to only allow certain license plate numbers drive on certain days leading up to Beijing Games. Event though the Atlantic cod was overfished to near extinction and may never recover. But we should still strip away all rules and regulations right??? Cause these are ALWAYS job killers. I ran this by Jeff Skilling (ex-Enron CEO) and he agrees...

 

You are jumping all over in your post and are comparing apples to oranges in some of your thoughts. This is one of the big problems I have in discussing the issue of climate change with believers in it. What you are inferring is that because man has over hunted/over fished whatever species to near extinction it relates to climate change somehow. They have ZERO correlation to each other.

 

Again, as I mentioned earlier climate change and environmental stewardship are two totally different arguments. So far from the other posters who have commented about stewardship, they appear totally on board with it and believe it is in our best interest and we can actually try to control/regulate it. As a conservative or whatever, I have no problem acknowledging mankind's impact on animal and plant life with regards to abusing said resources. There are oodles of examples of how we have caused the extinction or near extinction of many species due to our poor stewardship of nature. Those actions are because we hunted/fished them to death or because we destroyed the biosphere where they lived and they couldn't survive elsewhere.

 

But show me/us exactly where only "man made" climate change has directly killed off all these species of plants, animals, etc. Effects from pollution, deforestation/habitat destruction, hunting/fishing don't count either. Just direct weather or climate patterns.

 

I am a hunter and fisherman, and the money I spend on licenses etc goes to wildlife management by the government usually and that's a good thing. I see no problems with the laws regulating what I can harvest or how much of it I can keep. The animals I harvest are purely for food for my family(assuming they'll eat it ). These laws are a good thing because people have over-harvested in the past, and then they didn't have the opportunity to provide for their family or have a outdoor hobby to engage in any more. Same thing with industries who did the same thing, how can you provide jobs or make a profit when there is nothing there to harvest? I can't help that "rogue" countries skate by regulations. As far as I can tell America tries hard to regulate many of its resources because of past failures and learning from those. Its in our best interest to be good stewards, are we perfect no, but we have come a long way here in the US with regard to this issue.

[DTCBND03 0]

What you are inferring is that because man has over hunted/over fished whatever species to near extinction it relates to climate change somehow. They have ZERO correlation to each other.

 

But show me/us exactly where only "man made" climate change has directly killed off all these species of plants, animals, etc. Effects from pollution, deforestation/habitat destruction, hunting/fishing don't count either. Just direct weather or climate patterns.

 

How can I provide an example when you limit all of my options given that everything is interconnected? But to answer your question...no i can not think of one massive heat wave or cold spell that knocked out an entire species. However, take coral reefs. Pollution and deforestation may be causing global warming. Warming oceans can kill off coral. But humans have also overfished, polluted and interfered with coral reefs so we can kill them off at a much faster rate like we did with whales, Atlantic cod, buffalo, etc. And it sounds like we're doing just that as coral reefs are rapidly dying. So combine climate change and humans using up natural resources faster than the earth can keep up and there ya go.