What Do We Think About Climate Change

PBS (US public TV network) had a program last night on changes affecting the ocean and repercussions ashore. Very big on depletion of species from overfishing. One phenomenon allegedly resulting from overfishing is huge releases of sulphur dioxide and methane, eruptions covering thousands of sq km of ocean off the coast of Namibia. The theory presented was that overfishing has resulted in too few plankton feeders, so too much plankton, with huge blooms and die offs, causing decomposition gases trapped in the residue on the ocean floor. Reduced atmospheric pressure from storm fronts causes gas releases, which kill more fish, then erupt into the atmosphere. The show was based on a study published in 2002. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6871/full/415493b.html .

The show itself had an obvious agenda, but the footage of massive trawlers sweeping all life from miles of ocean at a time were persuasive, as were the footage and descriptions of vast oceanic eddies filled with floating plastic trash.

Regardles of anyone's thoughts on the reasons for climate change, it should be obvious that uncontrolled removal of fish life and injection of trash are bound to reduce the quality of our oceans.

 

Interesting, Charlie, although I'm not sure eliminating the predators close to the top of the feeding pyramid will make phytoplancton bloom. Contrarily, eliminating big predators would make plankton-feeding animals to bloom, thus reducing the amount of plankton, I think.
Here another article on the same news, with more data and image:
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=6094
And another one:
http://environment.newscientist.com...ersea-eruptions-killing-billions-of-fish.html

Dozens of phytoplancton blooms images at:
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_set.php?categoryId=463&p=1

Cheers.

 

i just gave this wee man a chicken bone, do you think I shud eat him for Dinner, did you get sms, Guillo?

 

Yes, Stu. I got the sms and answered back saying thanks.

 

Like most TV shows, the science was without much detail. I confess I don't know the specific fish - zooplankton - phytoplankton relationship.

 

Perry,
You should write this people: http://www.newscientist.com/home.ns
They are in the UK.
Not a single word on global cooling.

Problem with this global warming gurus is they are boosting crazy people to propose planetary engineering projects to cool the planet, which may lead to disastrous effects by themselves. See, for example:
http://environment.newscientist.com...6.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news3_head_dn13773

Cheers.

 

ah was sent by JAJAH, so cant answer,
To much to think of in climate change, here they talk abt making all lights in new homes fluero , passing into law, but they are still producing 5 litre plus cars as fast as they can, so unless alongs comes a politician with real guts, only lip service will ever be paid to address the issues I hopped into one car the other day, the puter said , average fuel consumption 14.7 l/100 Whereas you can by a 2 l common rail diesel, just as fast, 6l/100 these are the things that could be tackled very easily
Down here sailing across the Tasman, I thought the seas looked very healthy, with so many marine mammels and fish Rarely does one sea ocean litter, in fact our beaches are totally devoid of plastic and other crap

 

Charlie,
As far as I know, fishes eat zooplancton wich feeds on phytoplancton. So eliminating fishes should increase zooplancton, this diminishing the phytoplancton stocks, not the contrary. See:
http://animal.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050606/foodchain.html

But I do not know the process in deep, either.

Very interesting presentation on the ocean's trophic chain and more:
http://www.joelkostka.net/teaching/...o the availability of nutrients and sunlight.

 

"Compact fluor" mandated here, also. But fluor lamps have mercury vapor inside; consumer warnings say to leave the area for a while if one is dropped. So greens are encouraging use of more mercury. Too many measures are driven by hidden agenda, measures become popular, ignorant people develop mass hysteria, "remedies" invoke the Law of Unintended Consequences (LUC is a close relative of the ubiquitous Mr Murphy).

 

Totally agree.

"The most important idea, proposed in SCIENCE magazine February 6th, would be to shift the burden of proof onto the fishing industry. Those who profit from public resources such as the oceans should have to demonstrate, before they can begin fishing, that their activities will not harm the public resource. At present, it is assumed that fishing will not damage life in the oceans, and the burden is on the general public to prove otherwise."

http://www.earthportals.com/oceansfish.html

Cheers.

 

one of my closest friends was an industrioal electrician, he parked his car everyday by a bin of broken flueros. the car was dusted, he died of cancers at 49, provan carcenogen was the mercury

 

Having taken a look at Professor Brook who says it can take just a few minutes for popular opinion to undermine years of scientific research, I would say that if those years are so easily undermined, then the results of that (or perhaps his) research are flawed. Just sour grapes. That ugly man is so behind the times that he thinks shaving his head is cool.

Brian, I would say to you that fence sitting is never an option. It's going to be colder and the northern hemisphere will bear the brunt of the ice. Aboriginals are reputed to have arrived in Australia 40,000 years age whilst Europe was still iced up. The climate improved here only about 15,000 years. It's unlikely you'll be iced over, though rainfall would increase and Alice Springs could be at the heart of a huge body of water. Start reserving your lakeside frontage.

Guillermo, Brook's pdf is out of date. Nothing later than 2004. All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/04/scariest-photo-you-will-see-all-day.html

Brook is wrong.

Regards,

Perry

 

Looking at all this climate change - some say the world is warming up others say it's cooling down! Makes you wonder doesn't it! IS ANYTHING ACTUALLY HAPPENING? OR IS IT WHAT THE POWERS THAT BE WANT TO HAPPEN? Would all seem to me that it is a plan by various governments (G8 ?) to cause panic amongst the populance with a view that panicky people are easier to control! Concentrate the minds of the peasants (you and me) on higher changes and we'll forget the minor ones. Revrse blame too - you dumped that, so all this is your fault! (nothing to do with what we are doing)

Logical? you bet it is!

 

Climate is always changing. It always has. It always will, until the Earth is no more. The global warming scare is now part of leftist/socialist/green dogma , promoted only in order to dominate the peoples of the world. What demonstrates how stupid these clowns are, is that they now believe their own lies & propaganda. I can recommend two books that will explain everything.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Scared-Deat...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207918668&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...60902/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_3_1/026-6400777-7651666

I am all for global warming as the alternative will kill billions. However that alternative is what is now happening.

Perry.

 

just thought you may like see this, or maybe not, camped here two nights, the ships passed so close , Bosperos