ocean conditions are changing due to Rapid Global Climate Shift

Yo,

It appears that you have been caught red-handed making a statement as though it was a FACT, based on partial or incorrect data.


We BOTH need to remember that is Thread is about Ocean Currents.


Allan (smiling and humming polka tunes to myself lol)

 

As long as we have (to use a play on words) drifted off the topic of ocean currents and the like, here are the real figures for federal spending, taken directly from the Office of Management and Budget.

The federal outlays as a fraction of gdp for the most recent year (2011) are 24.1%. This is only very slightly higher than the peak of the Reagan Big Government years, e.g. 23.5% in 1983.

 

The title of the thread as I read it is ocean conditions, not currents.

 

Unless you can reference an article from a reputable source, sorry, I simply do not believe it. It goes contrary to both my experience when I was working in that field and the experience of almost every single effectively unregulated fishery on the planet.

Catching big fish is not necessarily a good thing! Those are likely the prime breeding reservoirs. Given the mercury concentration increases with position on the food chain and size/age, it probably isn't good eating either, and frankly I have no time for 'sport fishermen' who want to kill a bigger fish than anyone else ever has just to claim some sort of record.

PDW

 

don't believe, its your choice, ask any fisherman on the east coast they will tell you what i have said. i don't have anything to back myself up . i catch and release fish myself but a tuna that size may not have survived because there would be no chance of getting it to the boat until it was completely buggered, samson fish fight hard like that and quite often die when you try to release them.

 

When Reagan had to deal with a democrat controlled congress which was drunk on spending money. At least he tried to cut spending.

 

Of course they weigh more. They have all that Hg in them.

 

Good one! Like I'm going to believe *anything* a fisherman tells me without corroboration - that'd be just after hell freezes over and seeing we're heading for global warming......

I spent 5 years working with fishermen and doing catch monitoring, assessment and the like back in the 80's. Friends of mine still do. Nothing has changed since the 80's, they tell me. Fishermen still outright lie, falsify log books, fishing areas, high grade their catch and generally do everything they can to make a buck if there's no observer around to stop them.

I'm not just a cynic, I'm a professional cynic on this topic.

PDW

 

Between the surface and a depth of 2,300 feet (700 meters), the world's ocean has warmed on average 0.045 degrees Fahrenheit (0.025 degrees Celsius) per decade over 50 years.
The simultaneous warming of the upper layers of all seven seas cannot be explained by natural climate variability alone...

The ingredient necessary to fully account for rising water temperatures in the last 50 years? Humans' greenhouse gas emissions...

"The bottom line is that this study substantially strengthens the conclusion that most of the observed global ocean warming over the past 50 years is attributable to human activities,"...

http://news.discovery.com/earth/more-evidence-humans-warming-ocean-120612.html

 

i don't just mean pro's, sportfishers as well. maybe there are pro's that behave like you say or maybe you have a good imagination, the fisherman i grew up with are all hard working people who follow the rules. there has been a noticeable increase in bluefin even if you and your mates haven't recorded it yet. your mates are probably still compiling information from 10 years ago, nothing happens quick in the government departments.

 

I ate a fish today --infact 2 fish called Sabba fish in this part of the world . You probably know them as mackeral. It was definitely smaller than the ones I bought--- oh last year sometime.

Shall I take this as definitive proof that fish are getting smaller or Tesco makes more profit.

 

Not quite true. The budgets that Reagan submitted and the budgets that congress passed were almost exactly the same in total dollar amount. There were some differences in how the money was allocated, but no significant difference in the total amount.

 

It is understandable that the past is more interesting than the future. Is this because contemplating what could have been is easier than what should be.

 

It's because there IS NO FUTURE!
Haven't you been listening to the global warmists?
We are all DOOMED unless we radically change ALL our ways. ALL people.
of course I have a better probability of sprouting wings than EVERYBODY changing their ways.
So! Let's talk about the past, since there IS NO FUTURE! LOL

Global warmists remind me of a convention of hypochondriacs!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yobarnacle
I'm only suggesting we cut back to AT LEAST max of 20% of GDP.
10% would be better!
Currently we have 40%. Talk about unsustainable!


Yo,

It appears that you have been caught red-handed (again) making a statement as though it was a FACT, based on partial or incorrect data.

Do you know why you do that? Do you know? I'm really curious.


I have corrected my typo. Will you correct your obvious misstatement of Fact?

Will you Man-up and explain how it happened?


We BOTH need to remember that is Thread is about Ocean Conditions. not currents.

My correction is underlined.


Allan (smiling and humming polka tunes to myself lol)