Global warming is getting tired, as a threat.

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Pages

AuthorTopic: Global warming is getting tired, as a threat.
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #0
So Science magazine came out with a new report. See it below, as reported by the AP. I've got some pretty big problems if this is born out over the next 40 years. Actually, we all have some huge problems if we can't get protein from the ocean anymore. If pollution will be the issue, then it is also likely that land based protein production will be afflicted as well. Could this be the end of the world as we know it?

quote:
Report: Seafood faces collapse by 2048

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Clambakes, crabcakes, swordfish steaks and even humble fish sticks could be little more than a fond memory in a few decades.
If current trends of overfishing and pollution continue, the populations of just about all seafood face collapse by 2048, a team of ecologists and economists warns in a report in Friday's issue of the journal Science.
"Whether we looked at tide pools or studies over the entire world's ocean, we saw the same picture emerging. In losing species we lose the productivity and stability of entire ecosystems," said the lead author Boris Worm of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
"I was shocked and disturbed by how consistent these trends are -- beyond anything we suspected," Worm said.
While the study focused on the oceans, concerns have been expressed by ecologists about threats to fish in the Great Lakes and other lakes, rivers and freshwaters, too.
Worm and an international team spent four years analyzing 32 controlled experiments, other studies from 48 marine protected areas and global catch data from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization's database of all fish and invertebrates worldwide from 1950 to 2003.
The scientists also looked at a 1,000-year time series for 12 coastal regions, drawing on data from archives, fishery records, sediment cores and archaeological data.
"At this point 29 percent of fish and seafood species have collapsed -- that is, their catch has declined by 90 percent. It is a very clear trend, and it is accelerating," Worm said. "If the long-term trend continues, all fish and seafood species are projected to collapse within my lifetime -- by 2048."
"It looks grim and the projection of the trend into the future looks even grimmer," he said. "But it's not too late to turn this around. It can be done, but it must be done soon. We need a shift from single species management to ecosystem management. It just requires a big chunk of political will to do it."
The researchers called for new marine reserves, better management to prevent overfishing and tighter controls on pollution.
In the 48 areas worldwide that have been protected to improve marine biodiversity, they found, "diversity of species recovered dramatically, and with it the ecosystem's productivity and stability."
While seafood forms a crucial concern in their study, the researchers were analyzing overall biodiversity of the oceans. The more species in the oceans, the better each can handle exploitation.
"Even bugs and weeds make clear, measurable contributions to ecosystems," said co-author J. Emmett Duffy of the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences.
The National Fisheries Institute, a trade association for the seafood industry, does not share the researchers alarm.
"Fish stocks naturally fluctuate in population," the institute said in a statement. "By developing new technologies that capture target species more efficiently and result in less impact on other species or the environment, we are helping to ensure our industry does not adversely affect surrounding ecosystems or damage native species.
Seafood has become a growing part of Americans' diet in recent years. Consumption totaled 16.6 pounds per person in 2004, the most recent data available, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That compares with 15.2 pounds in 2000.
Joshua Reichert, head of the private Pew Charitable Trusts' environment program, pointed out that worldwide fishing provides $80 billion in revenue and 200 million people depend on it for their livelihoods. For more than 1 billion people, many of whom are poor, fish is their main source of protein, he said.
The research was funded by the National Science Foundation's National Center for Ecological Synthesis and Analysis.



--------------------
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing.


Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #1
Oh, so it threatens your livelihood in particular and it gets 'tired', eh? It isn't just a river in Egypt, you know. :P
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #2
quote:
Originally written by The Worst Man Ever:

Oh, so it threatens your livelihood in particular and it gets 'tired', eh? It isn't just a river in Egypt, you know. :P
Gentle Alec, you misunderstand. I am aware that humans are changing the factors governing the climate through pollution and other vectors. What bugs me is the term "global warming." Call it climate change. Call it pollution or catastrophic shifts in weather patterns. Or as these people did, call it a massive loss of food tothe planet because humans are idiots.

The latest news I've heard is that the pollack fleet can no longer find them in the Bering Sea in profitable numbers. The Russian Fleet however has no problems getting them, as the cold water they prefer is now only in the area north of Siberia. Salmon have started impregnating streams in northern Alaska where they have never before been seen. Gulf of Alaska fishermen are catching warm water species, mostly those that wander up from the Mexican coast.

We've got huge problems, an incredibly expensive solution and a national news story. And by incredibly expensive I mean $9 trillion dollars. Rupert can tell you more.

[ Thursday, November 02, 2006 23:23: Message edited by: Spammin' Salmon ]

--------------------
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing.


Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 5410
Profile #3
You know, I recently came across a news item by an (American) scientist that looked at temperature patterns in the vertical dimension. The theory is that if global warming is true than there should be increases in temperature as you go up from earth into the strosphere and this isn't occurring. In other words, only low level atmosphere is experiencing warming trends.

I'll see if I can find more info and what it means to global warming theories. I'm kinda skeptical to global warming anyway - but depletion of earth's resources could be another, more troubling and immediate concern.

Edit: that was easy. Here is a link to an easy to read article. global warming not entirely true?

Essentially says that global temperatures five miles up into the atmosphere indicate a cooling trend not a warming trend over the past two decades and what we have is a surface phenomenom. It also suggests that we are not giving enough credit to natural sources for climate change, such as the activity of our sun.

On depletion of earth's resources, that ocean comment ties in to the WWF report that indicates by 2050, if current use rates continue, we will need two planets worth of resources to sustain the world. Even now, it takes the earth approximately 15 months to regenerate what is used by the planet in 12 months and our rate of use is increasing at 4% per year.

[ Friday, November 03, 2006 06:20: Message edited by: chasm of Sar ]

--------------------
"Dikiyoba ... is demon ... drives people mad and ... do all sorts of strange things."

"You Spiderwebbians are mad, mad, mad as March hares."
Posts: 687 | Registered: Wednesday, January 19 2005 08:00
Agent
Member # 3364
Profile Homepage #4
quote:
Originally written by Spammin' Salmon:

Could this be the end of the world as we know it?
Yes, yes it is. Unless the ice age hits first. And even then, maybe still yes.

[ Friday, November 03, 2006 06:43: Message edited by: Jewels ]

--------------------
"Even the worst Terror from Hell can be transformed to a testimony from Heaven!" - Rev. David Wood 6\23\05

"Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as you ever can." - John Wesley
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Tuesday, August 19 2003 07:00
Councilor
Member # 6600
Profile Homepage #5
So basically, Salmon and Fatman, you agree that people are messing up the environment, but don't think that the term "global warming" covers it correctly?

The other question, of course, is what are we going to do about the pollution, climate change, etc.?

Dikiyoba.
Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
Profile Homepage #6
quote:
Originally written by chasm of Sar:

Here is a link to an easy to read article. global warming not entirely true?
The Honolulu Advertiser. The Honolulu Advertiser. Please, if you want me to believe you, show me something that's been peer-reviewed, and written by an actual researcher. And that article is spun harder than cotton candy...

And about factoring in natural changes in temperature... well, it just doesn't vary as much as it is right now. Most of the IPCC models show that the current temperature fluctuations are out of the "natural" range. Granted, part of the temperature change is natural, but the majority is easily traced to human influences.

--------------------
Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice.

I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion.
Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #7
Actually, I continue to look for evidence that we are thrashing our planet, and fatman seems to be using thrashed theories to shrug off any responsibility.

Just because a theory is proven wrong, doesn't mean the conclusions are wrong as well. What crap science that would be. Sheesh.

--------------------
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing.


Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Agent
Member # 6581
Profile Homepage #8
Meh. Humans are like parassites, not mammals -- they came in a place, they grow up, they use all the resources of the place and when they run out they go in another place.

Seriously, it is the same for our planet. Sooner or later it will meltdown. Only two things can happen when the planet will explode, in my opinion:

1- We all die;
2- Since Mars is colonized, some people survive. They will do the same errors in this future? I dunno. Even if I think more yes than no.

EDIT: Don't blame me, I don't hate all humans, but there are too many people that act just for their interest. And they are the most powerful ones.

[ Friday, November 03, 2006 09:26: Message edited by: Guardian Magma ]

--------------------
Download Geneforge 4: Rebellion

You have 6 posts. Nobody cares what you think. - Thuryl

Wikipedia may be your friend, but UBB is not. - Dikiyoba
Posts: 1310 | Registered: Tuesday, December 20 2005 08:00
Infiltrator
Member # 5410
Profile #9
Eph:
quote:
The Honolulu Advertiser. The Honolulu Advertiser. Please, if you want me to believe you, show me something that's been peer-reviewed, and written by an actual researcher. And that article is spun harder than cotton candy...

I said easy to read article. It's been reported elsewhere including credible newspapers and the like. I didn't bother with the original source because it didn't interest me enough to spend the time. And, the fact that alternate theories keep coming up suggests (to me) that the science is not yet conclusive on the issue.

Eph:
quote:
Granted, part of the temperature change is natural, but the majority is easily traced to human influences.

I disagree with the use of "majority" and "easily traced" in that statement.

Salmon:
quote:
Actually, I continue to look for evidence that we are thrashing our planet, and fatman seems to be using thrashed theories to shrug off any responsibility.

I disagree. I am not convinced of the global warming theories as I have not yet seen incontrovertible evidence on the issue. Much attention is focussed on an issue that I worry could become like the boy who cried wolf and cause us to become complacent about real issues over which we have much more direct control.

Those issues include Salmon's original comment on depletion of the Oceans resources (it takes between 7 and 10 years from the discovery of a new ocean resource to its substantial depletion - example is the orange roughy) or my comment on WWF's report on using earth's resources beyond long term sustainability.

--------------------
"Dikiyoba ... is demon ... drives people mad and ... do all sorts of strange things."

"You Spiderwebbians are mad, mad, mad as March hares."
Posts: 687 | Registered: Wednesday, January 19 2005 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #10
Do you need incontrovertible evidence that gravity will continue to work? Do you need incontrovertible evidence that a medicine you take will improve your health.

Grow up fatman. If it walks like a duck, and looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, would you require DNA tests before accepting that it is a duck? :rolleyes:

--------------------
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing.


Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 5410
Profile #11
But it doesn't walk talk or do anything like a duck. So in my books stop classifying it as a duck. Simple science is for children and for fish.

looked around to get a good quote on what I was thinking. From John Christy, professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

quote:
That greenhouse gases are increasing in concentration is clearly true and therefore the radiation budget of the atmosphere will be altered. In response, the surface temperature should rise due to this additional forcing. In our observational work however, we have not been able to show clear support for the manner or magnitude of this response as has been depicted by the present set of climate models
So, yeah our models are not yet complex or rubust enough to fully describe what is happening or why.

[ Friday, November 03, 2006 10:56: Message edited by: chasm of Sar ]

--------------------
"Dikiyoba ... is demon ... drives people mad and ... do all sorts of strange things."

"You Spiderwebbians are mad, mad, mad as March hares."
Posts: 687 | Registered: Wednesday, January 19 2005 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #12
quote:
Originally written by chasm of Sar:

So, yeah our models are not yet complex or rubust enough to fully describe what is happening or why.
And when models suck, most rational people go back and re-study what has been observed. A theory that is disproven has nothing to say on a subject except to eliminate one cause-effect thread. We could still be looking at a situation of 100% human forced global climate change, yet not have the tools to see that it is happening.

What is certain is that something is happening, and our limited understanding indicates that it will take a massive effort to slow it down or stop it, and the alternative is chaos, death, and a huge change in civilization, society, and life.

Given those two choices, which route do you want to take? Are you the cautious type that buys insurance? Or are you the tail-gater that is in such a hurry to get anywhere that you miss the journey?

--------------------
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing.


Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 5410
Profile #13
quote:
What is certain is that something is happening, and our limited understanding indicates that it will take a massive effort to slow it down or stop it, and the alternative is chaos, death, and a huge change in civilization, society, and life.

Yes,total agreement here. And there is much evidence that human interaction with the landscape has caused disruption of all sorts of natural cycles. BUT if we get the theory wrong and put massive amounts of capital in correcting the wrong element than we may be limiting what we can do in the future for the right element. This IS NOT a propopent for do n/t. Much of the proposed items on the to do list have other (and I would argue) more legitimate reasons for correcting them, therefore we should act.

I am arguing more from the standpoint of faulty motivation may lead in the future to inaction because we cried wolf too many times and people are tired of it - much like the initial title to this topic.

Climate change may happen suddenly and be an issue...or it may not. It may have a significant human element that we can control...ornot. We may have an immediate and significant effect if we act immediately...or not. But we do know that certain resources are finite and being depleted rapidly, such as your example of ocean fisheries. 2050, that is within my lifetime and I would argue that the evidence for consequences is much more compelling so we should act on such items as a higher priority (although where complimentary or not in competition, work towards both goals of course).

To be clearer, I question the scientific analysis on human induced global warming, but I do not question that humans have had a significant, negative effect on various items relating to the planets health. And I am in agreement that we should be acting now, in part because on a personal, ethical note if we fail to act we are part of the problem (our descendants should not be responsible for our ills) and in part because we do need to preserve the future.

--------------------
"Dikiyoba ... is demon ... drives people mad and ... do all sorts of strange things."

"You Spiderwebbians are mad, mad, mad as March hares."
Posts: 687 | Registered: Wednesday, January 19 2005 08:00
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
Profile Homepage #14
The problem with waiting until you are 100% ceratain that global warming is happening is that at that point, it will be impossible to do anything about it. The planet's climate is a massive system that takes centuries to change. We've been pushing it in one direction from the start of Industrial Revolution. So even if we start now, it will take a long time to stop the current trend. If you wait until you are 100% certain (I guess the polar ice caps melting would be a good indication), it will be a little late to start working on slowing down the process.

[ Friday, November 03, 2006 14:16: Message edited by: Zeviz ]

--------------------
Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword,
For it too has the power to kill.
However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword,
Can also have the power to heal.
Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
Councilor
Member # 6600
Profile Homepage #15
Originally by Zeviz:

quote:
If you wait until you are 100% certain (I guess the polar ice caps melting would be a good indication), it will be a little late to start working on slowing down the process.
But they are already melting, and not everyone believes that it is a problem.

On the plus side, if we wait until everyone is 100% certain that there is a problem because one of the Antarctic ice sheets has fallen into the ocean, we won't have to worry about Florida messing up any more elections, because it'll be underwater. :P

Dikiyoba.
Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #16
There is one bit of good news in all of this: octopus and squid populations are on the rise. Hope you like calamari, because one day it might be the only seafood that's still in fishable quantities.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #17
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

There is one bit of good news in all of this: octopus and squid populations are on the rise. Hope you like calamari, because one day it might be the only seafood that's still in fishable quantities.
Thanks for reminding me, I have some in the freezer and I should get it out one of these days and cook it up. Mmmm calamari. :D

--------------------
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing.


Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 4239
Profile #18
There is no question in the scientific community that global warming is happening. There's some question as to whether humans are causing all of it, but it really doesn't matter -- global warming is happening, and we need to do what we can to deal with it.
I don't have a source for this, but my favorite statistic (from a professor who concentrates on the politics of rain forests) is that 95% of scientists believe in global warming, but only 50% of those who get to testify in Congress do.

--------------------
There are two kinds of game players...those who are newbies, and those who were.
Posts: 322 | Registered: Monday, April 12 2004 07:00
Shaper
Member # 7472
Profile Homepage #19
quote:
Originally written by Spammin' Salmon:

quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

There is one bit of good news in all of this: octopus and squid populations are on the rise. Hope you like calamari, because one day it might be the only seafood that's still in fishable quantities.
Thanks for reminding me, I have some in the freezer and I should get it out one of these days and cook it up. Mmmm calamari. :D

Don't let Delicious Vlish catch you saying that...

At any rate, I don't eat much seafood. I prefer my food to be grown on land. Although I won't say no to Crab Ragoons. I'm also pretty sure I spelled that wrong.

EDIT: 'elicious'?!? My keyboard has gone rogue!

[ Friday, November 03, 2006 16:57: Message edited by: Nioca ]

--------------------
I tried to think of something witty to put here.

Needless to say, I failed.
Posts: 2686 | Registered: Friday, September 8 2006 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
Profile Homepage #20
Fatman: I'm just kind of curious. Exactly what natural processes are causing this drastic climate change, then?

(Calamari is pretty good... it just usually needs sauce to taste like much of anything. That said, I'd like to have some variety left in my diet when the ice caps melt, so I'm all for conserving fish.)

--------------------
Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice.

I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion.
Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00
Agent
Member # 2820
Profile #21
I think the fish article is a little ridiculous in its predictions. Bringing all fish everywhere to extinction in 50 years without noticing bad consequences in the process and stopping would require that everyone in the world suddenly become stupid and blind.

Concerning global warming, there is unanimous agreement that human activities have had effects on the environment and pollution is bad. However, there is not in fact clear evidence that a true global warming is occurring. The Earth does undergo massive climate changes naturally over time. The effect of carbon dioxide on global warming is often over exaggerated and I strongly disagree with simulations that have been tweaked to create imminent doomsday scenarios.

Nevertheless, I personally believe that the chemicals we release into the air will seriously negatively impact the environment within the next century. Tighter regulations concerning chemical emissions, byproducts, waste, and disposal need to be imposed. We cannot afford to wait until we have absolute proof because nothing short of a disaster would constitute such a proof. The carbon dioxide doomsday explanation I most agree with, though, involves the saturation of the ocean, which usually acts as a buffer to prevent rapid changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Hopefully someone remembers where to find this study.

--------------------
Thuryl: I mean, most of us don't go around consuming our own bodily fluids, no matter how delicious they are.
====
Alorael: War and violence would end if we all had each other's babies!
====
Drakefyre: Those are hideous mangos.
Posts: 1415 | Registered: Thursday, March 27 2003 08:00
Councilor
Member # 6600
Profile Homepage #22
Originally by Garrison:

quote:
Bringing all fish everywhere to extinction in 50 years without noticing bad consequences in the process and stopping would require that everyone in the world suddenly become stupid and blind.
The article doesn't say that, though. The article says that edible fish species will decline to the point where it becomes impractical to fish for them, basically. They might not go extinct once we realize how close to extinction they are (and if the demand for them drops because we find a more economical food source).

Dikiyoba.
Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #23
quote:
Originally written by Dikiyoba:

They might not go extinct once we realize how close to extinction they are (and if the demand for them drops because we find a more economical food source).
It would be tough to catch the last fish, but you could easily kill it. If the pollution gets so bad that the ocean kills fish, we won't have any problems feeding the world. Really.

--------------------
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing.


Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Agent
Member # 27
Profile #24
I remember hearing somewhere that global warming is going to happen eventually, regardless of pollution or the absence of it.
Posts: 1233 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00

Pages