Global Warming/Climate Change 2

[STEVE G]

Melting Arctic ice spawns mass oceanic migrations

Vast migrations of marine species are taking place thanks to melting polar ice caps opening the way between oceans. Species unseen for centuries or longer are crossing over from the Pacific to the North Atlantic Ocean though a new Northwest Passage, a phenomenon which scientists warn could endanger North Atlantic ecosystem.

"Such a geographical shift could transform the biodiversity and functioning of the Arctic and North Atlantic marine ecosystems," the Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science (SAHFOS) presaged, reports TG Daily.

After disappearing from the North Atlantic 800,000 years ago, a minuscule species of plankton called Neodenticula seminae has reappeared, likely having travelled from the Pacific through the Arctic Ocean. This constitutes “the first evidence of a trans-Arctic migration in modern times,” SAHFOS explained.

Last year, despite having been hunted to extinction in the Atlantic Ocean by the mid-1700s, a Pacific gray whale was observed off the coasts of Spain and Israel, reports Associated Press.

The findings appear in a new catalog by project Climate Change and European Marine Ecosystem Research (CLAMER), a collaboration of 17 institutes on climate change and the oceans in 10 European countries combining the results of almost 300 climate change-related research projects funded by the European Union (EU) over 13 years.

"The migrations are an example of how changing climate conditions cause species to move or change their behaviour, leading to shifts in ecosystems that are clearly visible today," stated Carlo Heip, director general of the NIOZ Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, which heads the CLAMER project.

As it documents the change in plankton through the Continuous Plankton Recorder Survey -- the longest and most geographically extensive marine biological survey ever done -- SAHFOS has found that populations of tiny animals called copepods are also changing, jeopardising the food supply of fish including cod, herring and mackerel and their predators.

As climate change progresses and the Atlantic and the North Sea get warmer, the copepod Calanus finmarchicus is being replaced by smaller and less nutritious varieties and has led to the collapse of certain fish stocks, the researchers report.

"The major issue about this climate change is the rate at which things are happening at this moment. … We had change, we had warming, we had cooling, we had ice ages, but it was always slower than things are going now," said Katja Philippart, a marine biologist with the Royal Netherlands Institute and a coordinator for CLAMER, reports CBS News. "The rate is unprecedented."

Among many other species shifting northward, harbour porpoises migrated from the northern North Sea when sand eels, a favourite prey, moved north.

"The predictions of higher average temperatures and milder winters in the North Sea make it likely that these species will increase further in abundance and move northward," said scientists from the Netherlands Institute for Ecology (NIOO). "This will affect the North Sea food web and therefore commercial species by predation on juveniles and competition for food resources."

http://www.fis.com/fis/worldnews/worldn ... ndb=1&df=0

[hhfarang]

So, let me get this straight... they're saying that plankton that used to be in the north Atlantic but disappeared are returning now, and that species that were hunted to extinction in those waters have now returned there again.

I'm at a loss as to why this is a bad thing if it wasn't before. Sometimes I think scientists are like politicians, they just want to be the next one with the next big news to become published or famous whether the news means anything or not. I doubt if they have any idea of what will happen to the food chain, whether it will evolve in a good or a bad way... they just want in on the global warming scare and make a name for themselves.

[STEVE G]

I'm at a loss as to why this is a bad thing if it wasn't before.

It might not be a bad thing at all but the problem is that the world is rapidly changing and the final result is uncertain.
I suppose it depends on how much risk that mankind considers is acceptable for future generations but most people seem to think it's not worth bothering about if it means that they might have to save on a bit of energy usage.

[charlesh]

"Vast migrations of marine species are taking place thanks to melting polar ice caps opening the way between oceans. Species unseen for centuries or longer are crossing over from the Pacific to the North Atlantic Ocean though a new Northwest Passage, a phenomenon which scientists warn could endanger North Atlantic ecosystem"

Hardly a good example of global warming aka climate change!! Who writes this stuff anyway??
HHF is on the money unlike most of the so called scientists and the myriad of NGO's existing on this flawed science who are no better than bottom feeders or sycophants.

Steve the problem IMO is the overpopulation and the direct and peripheral damage that it causes for which NO government has the guts to handle.

[STEVE G]

Steve the problem IMO is the overpopulation and the direct and peripheral damage that it causes for which NO government has the guts to handle.

The problem in my opinion is the overuse of fossil fuel and I'm at a loss to understand why using less of it would be a bad thing.

[hhfarang]

The problem in my opinion is the overuse of fossil fuel and I'm at a loss to understand why using less of it would be a bad thing.

I think everyone understands that using less of it wouldn't be a bad thing... it's just that nobody has come up with a viable, cost effective substitute, and probably won't until we are in danger of running out of fossil fuel.

The only alternatives that science can come up with are tiny clown cars that use electricity (means more coal burning so is a wash), carbon tax which will ruin economies and pad the pockets of corrupt politicians, or everyone staying at home or riding a bicycle. The first company that comes up with a really good alternative fuel source that doesn't have other damaging side effects and is as cheap as using fossil fuel for the same amount of power will make a fortune.

I'm doing my part. I stay home most of the time... oh, sorry, there is the air conditioning that I use there...

Edit: off topic, but I just realized with this post I became an addict of yet another thing!

[STEVE G]

.....or everyone staying at home or riding a bicycle

I'm just off out on the bicycle!
Incidentally, the aviation industry is seriously looking at algae based biofuels.
It has the same energy density as kerosene and potentially you can grow it in glass tubes in the desert.
Boeing used some on our new 747-800 when it came over for the Paris air show a couple of weeks ago.

[sandman67]

I thought Id inject a bit of hard science eye candy into this footy game of opinionating and misunderstanding. See lads, I know science is NOT a democratic process, and that uninformed public opinion based on often miscorrect journalism is worth absolutely nothing in the great debate, as are the partisan opinions of all politicians. So when over 90% of qualified scientific voices say man made climate change is a fact and threat to our continued wellbeing as a race, I go with them on that. You may think that climate change is a con game, but as you dont have any relevant qualifications your opinion is worth sod all. Personally Im glad science is the way it is, rather than a popularity contest.

And if this is a clown car, Ill be the one wearing baggy pants and a red nose

http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster

The sedan Model S is equally tasty......and solar panels on your garage roof would mean no coal required.

Anyway, here is a lovely bit of eye candy care of NASA Heliophysics - a coronal mass ejection event that occured in June. Bear in mind that the Earth could have been easily swallowed by that cloud of ejecta.... wow! Its also fascinating to see the gravity field pull the ejecta back in.



humbling eh?

[redzonerocker]

You may think that climate change is a con game, but as you dont have any relevant qualifications your opinion is worth sod all.

Qualified or not, if the data was that truthful & damning why try to hide it? (or lose it )

CRU director Phil Jones told Australian scientist Warwick Hughes in a 2005 email: "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."

^^^ WTF I thought it was clear & proven science?

problem is, the data, facts & figures were quite clearly altered & manipulated to suit the theory.
That makes much of the scientific opinion worth sod all too. IMO

In a short period of time, the Al bore docufantasy & Climategate did massive damage to the manmade GW theory & clearly reinforced the skeptics argument.
That was despite the fudged investigation & enquiry performed by the CRU's bedfellows the IPCC

[STEVE G]

That makes much of the scientific opinion worth sod all too.

If greenhouse gas theory was false, the world would have an average temperature of about -19 C. This has been understood since the nineteenth century.
If you accept greenhouse gas theory, then it is very obvious that an increase in greenhouse gasses will cause a resultant increase in temperature.
Incidentally, the atmosphere of Venus is over 90% CO2 and the surface temperature is over 400 C!

[redzonerocker]

If greenhouse gas theory was false, the world would have an average temperature of about -19 C. This has been understood since the nineteenth century.

It's generally understood that the medieval warming period was hotter than it is today.
But . . . the scientists will have us believe it wasn't global, just affecting the northern hemisphere.
They don't really know for sure because they don't have enough data for the southern hemisphere temperatures. Or maybe they did know & they lost the data

If you accept greenhouse gas theory, then it is very obvious that an increase in greenhouse gasses will cause a resultant increase in temperature.

Steve, the point i was making was, it doesn't matter how intelligent a person is or how many qualifications they have, if they falsify & manipulate data to fit their own agenda, then get caught lying & trying to cover it up, they will lose trust, & their reputations will be tarnished, end of!

When they also fail to & refuse to release data to explain their findings, it's only natural that their results are viewed with such skepticism.

Incidentally, the atmosphere of Venus is over 90% CO2 and the surface temperature is over 400 C!

Must remember not to take my flip flops off if i happen to go walkabout on Venus

[charlesh]

Yeah and Venus is the home of women and by the way it happens to be closer to the sun which might explain the temperature (solar convection) or otherwise the large CO2 levels are the result of a lot of Venetian cows farting (oops sorry that's CH4) or Venetian women driving around in their hotted up convertibles.

I do however like the idea of bio fuels!

RZR you are correct IMO as the plethora of information does seem to be following a theme and when you look at the funding behind it you have to wonder about it's credibility and the data is at best a reflection of a snapshot in time (a veritable pico second) in cyclical events with but 1 indisputable fact - that being the role of people (aka unsustainable population growth). Something even the great Attenborough has alluded to.

[STEVE G]

Steve, the point i was making was, it doesn't matter how intelligent a person is or how many qualifications they have, if they falsify & manipulate data to fit their own agenda, then get caught lying & trying to cover it up, they will lose trust, & their reputations will be tarnished, end of!

Yes, but that is nothing but politics and this thread is supposed to be about the science of global warming which has been understood to some degree for well over a hundred years.

[hhfarang]

Yes, but that is nothing but politics and this thread is supposed to be about the science of global warming

Really, I don't see the word science in the thread title. Politics is as much a part of the global warming discussion as science is. It is used as a political football or to pad the pockets of people who could care less about the planet, they just want power and wealth... and that needs to be a part of the discussion so that they don't use it just for their own purposes.

Politicians use it for votes and power while they help their cronies in certain businesses by trying to push the green agenda when in some cases they are actually lying to the public and possibly doing more harm to the environment and economy if they get their way.

It would be nice to be able separate the science of it from the politics (or get the politics out of it altogether), but they are tightly gripped in a firm handshake at the moment.

[STEVE G]

This website does a good job of explaining the theory and the history of it's discovery:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm