PDA

View Full Version : Global warming and the effect on our fishing



CharlieTuna
07-23-2009, 01:57 PM
I recently read that ocean productivity decreases when the climate warms. Plankton reduces their productivity by 30%. This left me wondering what effect global warming will have in the future on the amount of fish in the ocean. Maybe the effect has already started since there is talk about reduced amounts of stripers and salmon.

This is another article I came across.

How will global warming affect marine food chains?
February 17, 2008

Rising temperatures and acidity of the world's oceans due to human emissions of carbon dioxide is putting marine food webs at risk warned a researcher speaking at a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Boston.

Gretchen Hofmann, associate professor of biology at the University of California at Santa Barbara, said that pteropods, tiny organisms that play a critical part in marine ecology, are likely to suffer from higher carbon dioxide levels in the world's oceans. When carbon dioxide dissolves in seawater it makes increases acidity by stripping out carbonate ions, which are essential for marine organisms like pteropods to build calcium carbonate shells and exoskeletons.

"These animals are not charismatic but they are talking to us just as much as penguins or polar bears," said Hofmann. "They are harbingers of change. It's possible by 2050 they may not be able to make a shell anymore. If we lose these organisms, the impact on the food chain will be catastrophic."

The loss of these small organisms would have a disastrous impact on predators -- including salmon, mackerel, herring, cod -- that rely on them as a food source and could spell trouble for other species.

http://www.mongabay.com/images/external/2005/Sea_butterfly.jpg
The pteropod or sea butterfly is one marine organism that could suffer in more acidic seas. A recent experiment by Victoria Fabry at California State University San Marcos found that the shells of pteropods, when subjected to conditions as projected by the model for the year 2100, rapidly dissolved. Photo courtesy of USGS. Hofmann says that while invertebrates can adapt to increasing acidity, "re-tuning" their metabolism to make a shell in more acidic waters comes at a cost: "The physiological changes that are a response to the acidity make the animals less able to withstand warmer waters, and they are smaller," explained a news release from the University of California at Santa Barbara.

"These observations suggest that the ‘double jeopardy' situation —— warming and acidifying seas —— will be a complex environment for future marine organisms," she said.



http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0217-acidification.html

jonthepain
07-23-2009, 04:05 PM
A MINORITY VIEW

BY WALTER WILLIAMS

RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 2009



EPA Cover-up



Here's what I wrote in last year's column titled "Global Warming Rope-a-Dope" (12/24/2008): "Once laws are written, they are very difficult, if not impossible, to repeal. If a time would ever come when the permafrost returns to northern U.S., as far south as New Jersey as it once did, it's not inconceivable that Congress, caught in the grip of the global warming zealots, would keep all the laws on the books they wrote in the name of fighting global warming. Personally, I would not put it past them to write more." On June 28, 2009, the House of Representatives, by a narrow margin (219-212), passed the Waxman-Markey bill. The so-called "cap and trade" bill has been sold as a system for cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the struggle against global warming. There's a full-court press on the U.S. Senate to pass its version of "cap and trade."

"Cap and trade" is first a massive indirect tax on the American people and hence another source of revenue for Congress. More importantly "cap and trade" is just about the most effective tool for controlling most economic activity short of openly declaring ourselves a communist nation and it's a radical environmentalist's dream come true.

So why the rush and the press on the Senate? Increasing evidence is emerging that far from there being global warming, the Earth has been cooling and has been doing so for 10 years. Prominent atmospheric scientists have recently sent a letter to Congress saying, "You are being deceived about global warming. ... The Earth has been cooling for ten years. ... The present cooling was not predicted by the alarmists' computer models." Last March, more than 700 international scientists went on record dissenting over manmade global warming claims. About 31,500 American scientists, including 9,029 with Ph.D.s, have signed a petition, that in part reads, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

The Obama administration's EPA sees the increasing evidence against global warming as a threat to their agenda and has taken desperate measures. About a week before the House vote on "cap and trade," the Washington, D.C.-based Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) released some EPA e-mails, demonstrating that an internal report by Alan Carlin, a 35-year career EPA analyst, criticizing EPA's position on global warming, had been squelched for political reasons (http://bit.ly/11XwoC). One of the e-mails is from Dr. Al McGartland, director of the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics reads, "The administrator and administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. ... I can see only one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office."

The Competitive Enterprise Institute summarizes Dr. Carlin's report saying, "(T)hat EPA, by adopting the United Nations' 2007 'Fourth Assessment' report, is relying on outdated research and is ignoring major new developments. Those developments include a continued decline in global temperatures, a new consensus that future hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense, and new findings that water vapor will moderate, rather than exacerbate, temperature. "New data also indicate that ocean cycles are probably the most important single factor in explaining temperature fluctuations, though solar cycles may play a role as well, and that reliable satellite data undercut the likelihood of endangerment from greenhouse gases."

Geologist Dr. David Gee, chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress, currently at Uppsala University in Sweden asks, "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" Obviously, 10 years is not enough.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Stripercoast1
07-23-2009, 07:28 PM
Jon, I spent some time trying to post a response to the original. I tried to remain calm and utilize opposing point of view. I'm very happy to see you quoted from one of the most respected sources of scientific rebutters. After I reached 1000 words I decided to dump the response. So now I address your response.
I grew up during the earthy 70's when the chicken littles were calling for the coming ice age. It's the era when "Earth Day" started. Quite a few great things have come from the "geen" movement. We cleaned rivers, started recycling, and became concerned about issues affecting our environment. As with any phsycologically charged and emotionally driven issue, someone will figure out how to get rich from it. Al Gore has figured out the best get richer quicker scheme than even Maddof could. Same goes for the founders of PETA, HSUS, and ELF/ALF.
I remember winters with no snow when I was a kid and then the opposite happening when I was in my 20's and Narragansette Bat froze solid. the last few years have been some of the best for ice fishing in a long long time.
How any logical thinking human being could concieve that we can change weather patterns by taxing coal and gas to plant trees is beyond my comprehentsion.

jonthepain
07-24-2009, 03:11 PM
thanks sc.

When I was in college in the 70's, the media was hyping "global cooling."

Now they are hyping "global warming."

Like you said, it's all about the money.

Viewers for the media = advertising money.

cap & tax = money and power for politicians and the carbon trade companies.

Here's the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works Report on Global Warming:
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

They asked over 700 top scientists about global warming, and that is their report.