Our Oceans are Under Attack

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11334206

Wildlife numbers have plunged by more than half in just 40 years as Earth's human population has nearly doubled, a survey of over 3,000 vertebrate species has revealed.

From 1970 to 2010, there was a 39-per cent drop in numbers across a representative sample of land- and sea-dwelling species, while freshwater populations declined 76 per cent, the green group WWF said in its 2014 Living Planet Report.

Extrapolating from these figures, "the number of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish across the globe is, on average, about half the size it was 40 years ago," it said.

The 52-per cent decrease confirmed mankind was chomping through Nature's bounty much faster than the rate of replenishment, the WWF warned.

The last Living Planet Report, in 2012, found a 28-per cent drop in numbers from 1970-2008, but that was based on only 2,688 monitored species.



Read more:
• Give half of the planet back to the animals, says leading biologist

The new report tracks the growth or decline of more than 10,000 populations of 3,038 species ranging from forest elephants to sharks, turtles and albatrosses.

It stressed that humans were consuming natural resources at a rate that would require 1.5 Earths to sustain -- cutting down trees faster than they mature and harvesting more fish than oceans can replace.

"We are using nature's gifts as if we had more than just one Earth at our disposal," WWF Director General Marco Lambertini said in the foreword to the biennial publication.

"By taking more from our ecosystems and natural processes than can be replenished, we are jeopardising our very future."

While agricultural yield per hectare has improved through better farming and irrigation methods, the sheer human population explosion has reduced per capita "biocapacity", or available life-sustaining land.

Human population numbers shot up from about 3.7 billion to nearly seven billion from 1970 to 2010.

"So while biocapacity has increased globally, there is now less of it to go around," the report said.

And, it warned, "with the world population projected to reach 9.6 billion by 2050 and 11 billion by 2100, the amount of biocapacity available for each of us will shrink further".

The survey highlighted differences between nations and regions in consumption and biodiversity loss.

"Low-income countries have the smallest footprint, but suffer the greatest ecosystem losses," it said.
The wildlife decline was worst in the tropics with a 56 per cent drop, compared with 36 per cent in temperate regions.

Latin America suffered the most drastic losses with an overall decline of 83 per cent.


- Kuwaitis have largest footprint -


There were also vast differences in nations' "ecological footprint" -- the mark their consumption leaves on the planet, measured per capita.

The people of Kuwait had the biggest overall footprint, followed in the top 10 by Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Denmark, Belgium, Trinidad and Tobago, Singapore, the United States, Bahrain and Sweden.

Read more:
• World 'on the verge of next mass extinction'

Rich countries' biggest mark was in carbon emissions, while the impact of poor countries, at the tail end of the list, was mainly in consumption of land and forest products.

"If all people on the planet had the footprint of the average resident of Qatar, we would need 4.8 planets," the report said, and 3.9 at US rates.

Yet despite this vast consumption, almost a billion people do not have enough food and 768 million do not have access to clean water, it added.

Protecting nature's endowment is equally important for rich and poor nations, Lambertini said.

"We are all in this together. We all need nutritious food, fresh water and clean air, wherever in the world we live."

 

It's probably a good point to insert a request to please bring this thread back to the topic of the health of the oceans. Obviously people have many different viewpoints, but let's please not post too much on the public forums that will be offensive to many other members. Thanks.

 

Think! Eat! Act!: A Sea Shepherd Chef's Vegan Recipes


Think!, Eat!, Act! is a cookbook featuring the vegan food prepared on the Sea Shepherd ships' anti-whaling campaigns.
Inspired by the Sea Shepherd's goal of protecting the animals that are victims of human cruelty, this book uses delicious vegan food to show readers that every action has a consequence, and that you can live both well and compassionately, even while facing the challenges of being an activist living on a ship.

http://microcosmpublishing.com/catalog/books/4678/

 

Just a positive sarcasm, they was talking about jokes. As you are right (I have not problem in bring the right when correspond) and for cooling a bit the discussion.
This appeals yesterday in my fb and I remember your arguments, so you right in this sense.

 

Spring in the Antarctic looks pretty cold to me. Few vegetarians there!

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/antarctic.seaice.color.000.png

 

The way you two make such unwarranted connections between photos of skin and obscenity, between ************* and ********** suggests
the way you arrive at conclusions about the health of the earth might be suspect.

This photo is of the Niagara River, just below Niagara Falls. We burn as much oil everyday as water that goes under that bridge in 6.6 hours. We also burn 22 million tons of coal everyday, and 200,000 acres of rainforest are burned every day. We burned that much yesterday, we'll burn that much and more today, and we'll burn more tomorrow than we did today. We'll keep burning more and more everyday for decades into the future. Plus what we've burned in the past. What do you think?

http://slipr.com/2009/10/02/how-much-oil-does-the-world-use-in-a-day/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal
http://www.thinkglobalgreen.org/deforestation.html

 

One of the most useful tools
in criminal investigations is to ask:
“Who benefits?”
So, who benefits with the "global warming" and why?

 

The question isn't whether it's happening, but if man is significantly contributing to it. I guess I'd say because profits would not be affected, energy companies and manufacturing/industrial concerns benefit by saying global warming/climate change is not anthropogenic and therefore nothing needs to be done.

 

and our atmosphere is so immense, all that fuel burned may increase co2 1 part per million in 5 years.
and temperature doesn't follow CO2.
Historically increases in CO2 followed temperature, about 800 years later, according to ice cores.

our recent RECORD year temperatures are 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th century AVERAGE. A tenth or .2 of a degree higher than previous records.
CO2 passed 400 parts per million, up from 315 parts per million in 1958.

if 85 parts per million change in CO2 drives temperature up one degree F, what's the big deal?
And I said if, but CO2 doesn't drive temperature. It's a busted hypothesis.

 

I can see benefits in some agendas and geopolitics, contracts and "pay with land" neo colonization, manipulation by ecologist groups created and supported by governments, taxes, and so on. All corporatives and passing capital from one hand to the other. If I watch the media is something conspiranoid, but if I think and connect dots is very clear.
I don't remember exactly what was the phrase, but D.Mc.Arthur says something as when everybody share the same toughts somebody is not thinking. So we don't need to agree, just to be honests.
For any argument exists a counter argument, so the important is to see the reasons, not to defend arguments. The intelligence sees the tree, but don't forget the bush.
Man contribuites very little to global warming -or cooling under eastern pov- . Man contribuites with polution, also doing that enviromentally friendly windmills, ecologic cars, etc., and generating poverty and corporization of food with the excuse of global warming. The only technology I know to clean the waters of plastics and their residual chemicals, was done by a 19 yo dutch, but nobody did nothing to apply it or to develop it, or create another better, because this not bring profit and the bigger ammount of plastics still as an island in international waters. Then the green pacifics protest against Mururoa and the oil prospection of others. Is ecologist the speech of the fracking masters, the better joke of the thread.

 

You raised this same question over a year ago. Amazingly, the answer back then is the same as the answer now. Since you continue to be skeptical of science I don't suppose repeating the same answer will be very edifying for you. At the risk of boring long-time readers of AGW threads on BD.net here is a copy of that previous answer.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean? | Skeptical Science

 

that's a wiggle worthy of a reptile. CO2 lagged back then, whatever the reason, and temperature hasn't followed co2 for recent 15 to 20 years. hypothesis busted.

CO2 went up, temperatures didn't, or very little.
Quit crying wolf. Tired of hearing it.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKBWNVNzaPo

 

I suggested doing/making something useful with the garbage and keep it out of the ocean.

But that doesn't have a political agenda attached, like carbon dioxide has.
it's not about saving earth, it's about forcing their politics on the rest of us.
I'd rather see it all burn up first, but it won't.
Their CO2 global warming myth/wealth re-distribution scheme is dead, and they just can't let go.

 

Just posting this for anyone who actually is interested in climate science.

Blame climate change for heatwaves that struck in 2013

ETA: Might as well throw in a couple of others.

Global warming 'pause' cherry picks the facts

Read the rest on the link.

Then there's this: World's wildlife population halved in just 40 years

The approximate halving of other species' numbers over this period coincides with a roughly doubling of human population over the same period. Food for thought. Assuming you like thinking, of course (I'm aware that some people don't).