Mass Plankton Die-Off

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Tao,

After reading your admonition I looked back to see who the OP was and refresh myself on the post. Imagine my surprise to find it was myself.


.

LOL

Put a stopper in that bottle.

[hpeer]

NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by hummingway

I'd like him to grow old with more then a bankrupt world to call home but as things stand now I'm not sure he'll get that.

Me too (21 and 22 yo).

Change is the only constant.

Plague anyone?

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by hpeer

NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Heh.
.........

[mintyspilot]

Originally Posted by hummingway

It doesn't take much calculation to understand we have to drastically reduce oil consumption.

The root cause (always) is too many people. If we can shrink the population then resource consumption will reduce. In the short term a hard push to nuclear is the best idea.

Originally Posted by hummingway

I have a son who's just shy of thirty. I'd like him to grow old with more then a bankrupt world to call home but as things stand now I'm not sure he'll get that.

Encourage him to have no more than two kids. The "replacement rate" for a static population is about 2.5 kids per couple because not every child has progeny of its own.

[hpeer]

Minty,

I agree and disagree. Over population is surely the root cause of the problem.

But I can see no possible argument to tell any one they should not reproduce. That is simply genetic suicide.

I know that this leads to a quandary and I see no way around it. Thus I am very pessimistic about our future.

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Minty,

I agree and disagree. Over population is surely the root cause of the problem.

But I can see no possible argument to tell any one they should not reproduce. That is simply genetic suicide.

I know that this leads to a quandary and I see no way around it. Thus I am very pessimistic about our future.

The first world is already committing that suicide.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by mintyspilot

Thanks GordMay - an interesting read. I am now considerably less concerned than I was. The data in the paper is considerably less "certain" than how the media presents it and a lot of the data presented in the paper is open to other interpretations. I was particularly interested in the measurements of ocean transparency vs. in-situ measurements which seemed to me to suggest very little correlation between the two (graph "a", top left of page 2). The lines and trends in other graphs are based on data so scattered that you could draw almost any line through them.

This paper says one thing to me - that a *lot* more data needs collecting to capture meaningful trends. To be fair to the authors they state that "Estimated changes in marine phytoplankton using satellite remote sensing (1979–86 and 1997–present) have been variable, with reported global decreases and increases, and large interannual and decadal- scale variability. Despite differences in scale and approach, it is clear that long-term estimates of phytoplankton abundance are a necessary,but elusive, prerequisite to understanding macroecological changes in
the ocean." (my emphasis)

Interesting how are responses are different. From the same page I read...

We observe declines in eight out of ten ocean regions, and estimate a global rate of decline of 1% of the global median per year. Our analyses further reveal interannual to decadal phytoplankton fluctuations superimposed on long-term trends. These fluctuations are strongly correlated with basin-scale climate indices, whereas long-term declining trends are related to increasing sea surface temperatures.

So, that tells me at a global rate of decline we will have lost 50% of our phytoplankton in 70 years. The study went back to past 1950 so, at best, we are at to 50% mark now. Which is pretty darn close to the original post figures.

It also means that by 2080 we will be at 25%.

Sounds like my grandkids have lots to worry about.

Please reread the first page of that report. They note two trends, the one you quoted and the one that concerns me. They are saying that we are swinging around some median point, but that median point keeps getting lower and lower.

[osirissail]

Very Interesting article link posted by Gordmay. Scientists are not stupid - hopefully - and as a result all the major points are prefaced by the word "suggest" or "could." This is the "out" for them should they be subsequently be proven wrong or new data arise that "suggests" a different conclusion.
- - I can make a statement that "I suggest you are a racist-" but that does not in any way make you a "racist" or prove you are a "racist" - it is just a guess.
- - The most important paragraph in the article is the 3rd one where they initially acknowledge that the data trends are "variable" both up and down and "elusive."
- - I suspect the reason for the liberal use of modifiers is that there are hundreds, if not thousands of other variables that could effect the abundance of phytoplankton in the oceans including one major one. Measurements of Chl by measurements of ocean clarity can be affected dramatically by reduced mid-ocean pollution; or increased ice-melt water entering the oceans, and hundreds of other factors. Just like trying to "model" the weather - there are just too many variables in Mother Natures way of doing things for anybody or any computer to fully comprehend and account for.
- - There is nothing wrong with "suggesting" that "maybe" one factor ACC/AGW might be a factor. But just like classical physics experiments that were thought to be rock solid conclusive - until Quantum physics came along and introduced the concept of the act of observing the experiment changes the experiment. (e.g., Schrödinger's cat)
- - There needs to be some significant increase in both observations and time scale before anything more than "suggested" can be put to these conclusions. As the last sentence in the 2nd paragraph says, "Despite this far reaching importance, empirical estimates of long-term trends in phytoplankton abundance remain limited." This translates to a big "maybe." Which is not enough reason to radically shift/alter or hobble the world's economic and social systems.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by osirissail

... "Despite this far reaching importance, empirical estimates of long-term trends in phytoplankton abundance remain limited." This translates to a big "maybe." Which is not enough reason to radically shift/alter or hobble the world's economic and social systems.

That a radical shift in the world’s economic system might be a “bad thing”, would likely be an opinion most supported by one of the world’s “winners”, living in the upper 10Th or 20Th (economic) percentile.

The 500 richest people in the world have roughly as much wealth as the 500 million poorest. This unjust inequality might be, in itself, reason enough to radically shift the world’s economic system. But then again, (a big) maybe not.

“According to author Bob Hughes: "Climate change is a social justice issue, but till now it has been presented as a problem of collective guilt... pretending that the poor and the rich are somehow equally responsible. Meanwhile the real crime - the very existence of rich and poor - continues to create havoc. There are powerful interests who are quite content if social justice stays out of the climate change debate and no doubt will fight tooth and nail to keep it out. "

More ➥ Mines and Communities: Climate change debate must radically shift, says campaigner

[bobsadler]

from Brookes University: "Bob Hughes's (sic) interests include electronic media, creative work, and publishing for social change. He is the author of "Dust or Magic" (Addison-Wesley, 2000: a history of electronic media and 'survival guide' for those working in the new industry). Bob has worked as a calligrapher, as an advertising copywriter, and (from the mid-1980s) as an electronic media developer. He has taught part-time at Brookes since 2001, and writes and campaigns on human rights issues. He is currently writing a book on the utopian possibilities of new technology, to be published by Pluto Books in 2011."

Pretty much says it all I would have thought.

[osirissail]

Thanks to GordMay again we are getting to the bottom of the AGW/ACC political thrust which is, IMHO, tearing down and besmirching science in general and climate scientist specifically.
Bob Hughes: "Climate change is a social justice issue. . . "
- - From the link to Bob Hughes - "And an ever-growing mountain of evidence indicts inequality as the real driving force behind all the harms, and more, that have finally led to climate change." [emphasis added]
- - I would submit that "inequality" has existed throughout the history of humans and the progenitors of humans. Basically ever since the first cave man smacked a cave woman over the head with a club and dragged her into his cave - inequality amongst humans has been abundantly evident. I would go so far as to submit that the concept of "inequality" is ingrained/inherent, even biologically coded into humans.
- -Capitalism is the reigning and surviving economic system in the human world for a reason - inequality. As stated in "Animal Farm" - some animals are more equal.
- - The use of Climate Change to try to change "inequality" in human culture is both disastrous to real CC science and an attempt to do something that is absolutely never going to happen so long as humans live in free and democratic societies -or - even in totalitarian societies where the concept "some animals are more equal" rules.

[TaoJones]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The 500 richest people in the world have roughly as much wealth as the 500 million poorest. This unjust inequality might be, in itself, reason enough to radically shift the world’s economic system. But then again, (a big) maybe not.

This part of your post brought to mind something I either read or heard in the last two or three days, Gord. The disparity between the wealthiest and the poorest Americans is now at a level, reportedly, last seen in 1928-29. The flow of capital into the hands of the already-wealthy comes at the expense of a vanishing middle class, who, as they join the ranks of "economic losers," sink into the rapidly expanding pool of the poorest Americans.

This is, quite literally, the definition of a "third-world country."

TaoJones

[osirissail]

Careful, TaoJones - now we are getting really close to going totally openly political versus trying to hide the discussion under ACC/AGW and all that missing "green stuff" - I mean phytoplankton.

[TaoJones]

Originally Posted by osirissail

Careful, TaoJones - now we are getting really close to going totally openly political versus trying to hide the discussion under ACC/AGW and all that missing "green stuff" - I mean phytoplankton.

Hmmm . . . to me, economics (the "dismal science") is endlessly fascinating, but I suppose it's difficult, even impossible, for some to view it non-politically. It's a bit like studying the markets . . . are they merely an accumulation of numbers and graphs and trends and statistics, or a case-study in human psychology and the war within each participant to try to balance fear and greed?

The human condition is infinitely complex - I suspect the planetary condition is, as well.

TaoJones