Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
Our Oceans Are Reaching the Climate Change Tipping Point, Warn Scientists
Steve Williams
Jul 9, 2015
Researchers are warning that our oceans are rapidly approaching a point of no return where climate change will drastically alter marine habitats and what life they can support. What could this mean for our future and how can we stave off the worst effects?
Publishing in the journal Science, researchers from the University of Queensland together with an international team of other scientists warn that increased carbon emissions in our atmospheres as well as other pollution is causing the acidification of our oceans and that we are rapidly approaching the point at which our aquatic eco-systems may undergo permanent change, which in turn could threaten the lives of many marine species and radically alter the make-up marine habitats.
The researchers say that there has not been enough focus on climate change and its impact on our oceans, with recent data showing only a relatively small percentage of research publications are even talking about oceans in their wider coverage of climate change topics. This is curious given that oceans may absorb up to 90 percent of the excess heat and over a quarter of the carbon pollution that we’ve been creating as a result of our use of fossil fuels.
The researchers, building off last year’s IPCC assessment of climate change’s impact on our oceans, looked at two different scenarios: carrying on with our fossil fuel consumption as is, and taking steps to reduce it to agreed international goals. By comparing the scenarios (a more in-depth review can be found here) the researchers were able to show that if we do nothing or fail to meet our international targets, rising temperatures will lead to warmer and more stagnant waters. With a decrease in available oxygen, many marine species will struggle to thrive, and this may even lead to destruction of habitats like coral reefs which are already in decline. Habitat collapse could almost certainly lead to marine species die-out, particularly those that reside or depend on environments like coral beds, and in addition would likely imperil human communities that rely on fishing as part of their food supply and economy. Another issue for humans and in particular the fishing industry is that those fish that do not die-out will likely shift to other regions to escape the unfriendly changes in their habitats, again threatening food security and commerce.
Specifically, the study warns that any rise beyond the internationally agreed 2°C of pre-industrial temperatures–which some evidence says will still be seriously problematic–could be devastating.
The researchers say that after reviewing the data, there are four key conclusions that must be recognized:
First, the ocean strongly influences the climate system and provides important services to humans. Second, impacts on key marine and coastal organisms, ecosystems, and services are already detectable, and several will face high risk of impacts well before 2100, even under the low-emissions scenario (RCP2.6). These impacts will occur across all latitudes, making this a global concern beyond the north/south divide. Third, immediate and substantial reduction of CO2 emissions is required to prevent the massive and mostly irreversible impacts on ocean ecosystems and their services that are projected with emissions greater than those in RCP2.6. Limiting emissions to this level is necessary to meet stated objectives of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; a substantially different ocean would result from any less-stringent emissions scenario. Fourth, as atmospheric CO2 increases, protection, adaptation, and repair options for the ocean become fewer and less effective.
What does that mean? Coming ahead of the December climate summit in Paris it is a call that our political leaders attend with a mind toward real solutions. Specifically, we must reduce our emissions output if we are to stand any chance of staying under the 2°C cap. On that point, some researchers doubt we can actually get anywhere near that target and are projecting a rise that will be significantly higher, so we need to take a long and dispassionate look at what is actually achievable and go from there. Furthermore, it isn’t just enough to combat rising temperatures. As the above makes clear, we will also have to work to rebuild ocean habitats and help those fish and marine animals that we have endangered so they can begin to thrive again. We can do that by cutting down on other pollutants, stopping building work that would further change underwater ecosystems that are already feeling pressure, as well as studying in more detail climate change effects on ocean environments. It will mean tough decisions, like potentially cutting back fishing quotas in order to ensure the long term security of the industry, and more. But these are the hard choices that we will have to make if we are to even begin to help our ocean habitats survive.
The scientists perhaps put it best when they say:
“In summary, the carbon that we emit today will change the Earth System irreversibly for many generations to come. The ocean’s content of carbon, acidity, and heat as well as sea level will continue to increase long after atmospheric CO2 is stabilized. These irreversible changes increase with increasing emissions, underscoring the urgency of near-term carbon emission reduction if ocean warming and acidification are to be kept at moderate levels.”
Lastly, this serves to emphasize that we can no longer afford to give any ground to man-made climate change deniers because, quite simply, we don’t have the time.
Posted : July 10, 2015 11:19 am
OR, cO2 is natural and we shouldn't fear it at all?
our "change" data is insignificant at best?
Prominent Scientists Declare Climate Claims Ahead of UN Summit ‘Irrational’ – ‘Based On Nonsense’ – ‘Leading us down a false path’
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: 'Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial.' - 'When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period.'
Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: 'Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?'
Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore: 'We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science.'
Posted : December 1, 2015 5:07 pm
Lindsen has been debunked so many times, he heads right to the floor to go to sleep. He hitched his wagon to Willie (Soon), the oft debunked corporate shill. Won't even go there. Easy to search the internet for the fallacy behind this quote.
Happer? Says CO2 is not a pollutant. If using the dictionary definition, no, it's not. But if using it in the scientific context, (substance that upsets an eco-or bio-system), then it definitely is. An example is ocean acidification. Oceans absorb CO2 (about 1/4 of what's released in the air). More CO2 in the air, means more absorbed by the oceans. This is already decreasing ocean PH. Some marine life can handle this. Much of it can't, and some is undetermined.
Moore is another corporate shill (NEI) , and in spite of the myth, was not a co-founder of Greenpeace. He was President for awhile, until they kicked him out. They'd love it if his name wasn't used with theirs to boost his credibility, since he left about 30 years ago. His credibility has been called into account more often than Lindsen's, and the quote above is meaningless without citation (which he also tends to leave out).
I usually don't attack the person, rather I prefer to debate their arguments. But these three are the publishers' go-to guys for denier (er, counter point of view) quotes. They rarely, if ever, cite their sources that they base their statements on. Climate Depot, btw, is an offshoot of CFACT, an anti-climate change vehicle, whose scientific board is a who's who of energy industry "experts". You may as well have sourced from Breitbart.
Posted : December 1, 2015 7:35 pm
Moore is another corporate shill (NEI) , and in spite of the myth, was not a co-founder of Greenpeace. He was President for awhile, until they kicked him out. They'd love it if his name wasn't used with theirs to boost his credibility, since he left about 30 years ago. His credibility has been called into account more often than Lindsen's, and the quote above is meaningless without citation (which he also tends to leave out).
This "shill card" is lame man. I do not agree with Patrick Moore about climate change but I do not mind nuclear energy in the least. Also Patrick Moore's work getting Golden Rice going is admirable. He is right on saying "There's no getting away from the fact that over 6 billion people wake up each day on this planet with real needs for food, energy and materials"
Posted : December 1, 2015 8:14 pm
Moore is another corporate shill (NEI) , and in spite of the myth, was not a co-founder of Greenpeace. He was President for awhile, until they kicked him out. They'd love it if his name wasn't used with theirs to boost his credibility, since he left about 30 years ago. His credibility has been called into account more often than Lindsen's, and the quote above is meaningless without citation (which he also tends to leave out).
This "shill card" is lame man. I do not agree with Patrick Moore about climate change but I do not mind nuclear energy in the least. Also Patrick Moore's work getting Golden Rice going is admirable. He is right on saying "There's no getting away from the fact that over 6 billion people wake up each day on this planet with real needs for food, energy and materials"
"Shill" is much easier to type than "employed by the nuclear industry's largest and best funded lobby machine, allowing them to fraudulently pass him off as an environmentalist and co-founder of Greenpeace to gain environmentally friendly street cred". I'm not opposed to nuclear energy. i lived within iodine pill distance of TMI for over 2 decades. I do have a problem with NEI's underhandedness and cozy political revolving door ties over the years. I'm glad Moore is moonlighting to do something worthwhile after all these years.
Posted : December 2, 2015 12:16 am
. I do have a problem with NEI's underhandedness and cozy political revolving door ties over the years. I'm glad Moore is moonlighting to do something worthwhile after all these years.
Another great talk:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82W41de4TT4
As the Paris Climate Summit occurs on a world stage, 150 world leaders have gathered to ramp up the hysteria around climate change. Prince Charles warned that "we are becoming the architects of our own destruction" demanding immediate action - in the form of increased government power - to halt global warming. Stefan Molyneux and Alex Epstein (author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels) discuss the propaganda around global warming and aim to separate the facts from fiction.
Alex Epstein is the President and Founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, the author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels and an expert on energy and industrial policy. Center for Industrial Progress is a for-profit think-tank seeking to bring about a new industrial revolution. For more from Alex and CIP, please check out: industrialprogress.com and alexepstein.com
I love how instantly polarized this topic gets.
claims of "shill" and "denier" fly almost immediately! (terms meant to immediately dismiss and marginalize).
I prefer facts, statistics, studies and most of all, common sense.
looking at the over all picture, climate change is clearly not anthropomorphic; it is a massive cyclic system (mini-ice ages and major ice ages followed by warming periods).
the cO2 debate is misleading at best... cO2 does not function in a linear way when in the atmosphere (one extra atom of c02 doesn't cause X effect, there are (as in everything) diminishing returns).
I do not believe industrial civilization is bad, I do not want to stifle and control populations that are in other countries. I want everyone to have the same opportunity the US had (though they will have much much better/more efficient opportunities with current technology).
Posted : December 2, 2015 12:36 pm
I've been called a shill for Big Pharma for being vocal in support of vaccinations and a shill for Monsatan for supporting biotech crops. Oh well.
Posted : December 2, 2015 3:29 pm
I've been called a shill for Big Pharma for being vocal in support of vaccinations and a shill for Monsatan for supporting biotech crops. Oh well.
I've been called a Shill for the military (though, I work for them... so it's vaguely true?)
It's just like any other derogatory term, it's meant to confuse the topic at hand and marginalize/dismiss the unwanted information/messenger... It's actually a quite insidious tactic & generally relies heavily on Logical Fallacy.
Posted : December 2, 2015 3:44 pm
The natural fallacy, nirvana fallacy and various ad homs usually follow. Still waiting on my shill bucks so I can retire on a boat damnit.
Posted : December 2, 2015 8:32 pm
I've been called a shill for Big Pharma for being vocal in support of vaccinations and a shill for Monsatan for supporting biotech crops. Oh well.
I've been called a Shill for the military (though, I work for them... so it's vaguely true?)
It's just like any other derogatory term, it's meant to confuse the topic at hand and marginalize/dismiss the unwanted information/messenger... It's actually a quite insidious tactic & generally relies heavily on Logical Fallacy.
It was actually meant to define those persons' roles in their respective positions, and that they and their superiors were misrepresenting those roles. That the arrangements were not represented to the public for what they are, and that they are paid for doing it, means the word shill fits perfectly. Particularly when both of them have supported their institutions' purpose, in their roles as scientist and environmentalist, by promoting ideas that have been debunked through peer review.
That said, attributing false motive to word usage because the word is a negative one, in order to dismiss the statement in which it was used, IS logical fallacy usage.
Posted : December 2, 2015 8:52 pm
Topic starter
When people continue to stick their heads in the sand, remember that the costs may not be to you, directly, but to your children as well as theirs and so forth. Believe what you will but someone's going to pay the consequences.
Posted : December 3, 2015 7:43 pm
Alana, while I believe in man's contribution to climate change, the chicken little crowd constantly chanting "the sky is falling" is a bit to alarmist for me. There is a way to both lower our carbon footprint AND keep providing food and resources for 7 billion people. The problem is many of the chicken little types are ideologues who refuse to budge on their beliefs.
Posted : December 3, 2015 8:27 pm
Topic starter
People are free to choose but not free of the consequences of that choice.
Posted : December 5, 2015 1:07 pm
People are free to choose but not free of the consequences of that choice.
exactly, think about what all this crazy miss placed "eco savior" sanctions and carbon taxes will do to the emerging 3rd world economies.
how much longer humans will struggle and suffer and be hungry and die from preventable diseases.
I'm on team human.
Posted : December 5, 2015 2:57 pm
Topic starter
This is the only planet we've got so if you're on "team human," we need to take care of it.
Posted : December 5, 2015 3:03 pm
This is the only planet we've got so if you're on "team human," we need to take care of it.
I completely agree, I just want to make sure we are making decisions based on facts.
trying to control c02 is just insane.
Posted : December 7, 2015 12:13 pm
This is the only planet we've got so if you're on "team human," we need to take care of it.
I completely agree, I just want to make sure we are making decisions based on facts.
trying to control c02 is just insane.
Not sure why you think it's insane. Our levels are down from early 2000's, back to mid-90's. Even China is dropping (although its expected to rise for a bit longer). Clean coal technology, natural gas, hydroelectric power (in China), and fuel economy have helped the most.
Posted : December 7, 2015 3:28 pm
Not sure why you think it's insane. Our levels are down from early 2000's, back to mid-90's. Even China is dropping (although its expected to rise for a bit longer). Clean coal technology, natural gas, hydroelectric power (in China), and fuel economy have helped the most.
we GUESS they helped (mostly by using the logical fallacy "Correlation does not equal causation", we have no clue really).
the ocean puts out more c02 (and absorbs it) than we create every year... this is a huge massive system (the PLANET) and we just don't understand it.
Numbers represent flux of carbon dioxide in gigatonnes
Hell, how do you even MEASURE "average global temperature"?
Great video on the issues with measuring global temp here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL-HyviLy6c
"global warming" has been "paused" for 18 years now.. we have either held the same temp or declined for the last 18 years.... until they changed they way they use their temperature data, now there is supposedly no pause
But that doesn't fly for me, so I found the above video showing where the data actually comes from, and there clearly IS a pause based on the more accurate satellite data.
what was once a good thing (caring about the environment) has become a political movement with a LOT of money hinging on the outcome. And where "a lot of money" is involved humans tend to loose sight of anything but the money.
Posted : December 8, 2015 12:26 pm
Actually, we do have "a clue". The industrial output changes are measurable, so is the consumption of gasoline. And so are scientific properties of the atmosphere and ocean. The chart you used is derived from the same types of measurements. And here we are with an accumulation of CO2 that hasn't been absorbed, and extra CO2 in the ocean. Do we know everything? Of course not. Is there a measurable trend? Absolutely. Mendeleev predicted the properties of elements before they were discovered, based on trends of what had already been discovered. Same thing here.
And since you're into logical fallacies, nice "moving of the goal posts" by adding in the global warming "pause" and "data collection is bad" arguments. Since I realize there are people who won't be convinced until there's a thermometer on every street corner, I'm not going there. Have been down that road before, ad nauseum.
Posted : December 8, 2015 7:03 pm
And since you're into logical fallacies, nice "moving of the goal posts" by adding in the global warming "pause" and "data collection is bad" arguments. Since I realize there are people who won't be convinced until there's a thermometer on every street corner, I'm not going there. Have been down that road before, ad nauseum.
its a very good road to go down since it's so heavily used to indicate something.
what IS temperature even? And where should it be measured?
its over 2,000* in some parts of our atmosphere, does that figure in?
I was attempting to show uncertainty, I thought the two examples were pretty valid (finding average global temp and the global temp "pause"... since they both rely on the same 4 data sets).
I'm smarter than a rock, this should make sense to me... I understand algebra and variable use & complex systems... who could EVER take something as massive as the planet and think they've found a trend after a few decades?
Posted : December 8, 2015 7:15 pm
Good piece on why it's futile to use single avenues of evidence as proof there's no anthropogenic warming, like CO2 levels, anomalies in data collection, etc.
Vox - The two key points that climate skeptics miss
In a nutshell,
1) Climate science represents a convergence of evidence
2) Climate "skepticism" does not
Posted : December 12, 2015 1:06 pm
Topic starter
UN climate conference 30 Nov – 11 Dec 2015
Here's a link for the Paris Draft Agreement.
http://issuu.com/inquirerdotnet/docs/finaldraft?e=6505834/31931370
I would imagine that world leaders would not be meeting to, needlessly, waste their time to address Climate Change were it not necessary.
Posted : December 12, 2015 3:32 pm
Topic starter
Zooplankton and Microplastics: The Biggest Tiny Threat to Bears, Humans, and Whales
Plastic pollution in our oceans is a global problem that is spreading more quickly than anticipated. While environmentalists have been aware of how much plastic enters our oceans since the 1970s, no one expected the problem to escalate so quickly.
The major oversight in oceanic plastic pollution is not the 244,000 tons currently residing in our oceans, but the fact that it has become part of the daily diet for zooplankton. These tiny ocean critters are stationed at the bottom of the marine food chain and are quickly spreading the catastrophic effects of plastic pollution.
A recent study published in the journal Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology looked at two species of zooplankton found in the Northeast Pacific ocean, and found that they are consuming broken down particles of plastic at an alarming rate.
These species of zooplankton make up the diet for small fish, shrimp, and krill. To further emphasize the chain-like effects of the problem, these fish, shrimp, and krill make up the diet of larger fish, seals, and whales.
While there have been some studies, the problem of oceanic plastic pollution making its way up the food chain and into larger organisms is a relatively new concept. According to New Scientist, research has yet to be done on the long-term effects plastic pollution may have on the ocean’s ecosystems, but one initial concern is how it will affect the fish we consume.
The amount of plastic entering our oceans has moved beyond just an environmental issue, and become a worldwide health concern. When our pollution is making its way into our food, and our garbage is making its way onto our dinner plates, science must step in to resolve the issue.
Watch video on link below.
Read more at http://blog.therainforestsite.com/cs-zooplankton-plastic/#vtwRYmYwFwMQFFAg.99
Posted : December 18, 2015 2:04 pm
Topic starter
Posted : December 18, 2015 5:34 pm
Page 1 / 3
Next
