Mass Plankton Die-Off

[hpeer]

In hot water: World sets ocean temperature record (Update)

The average water temperature worldwide was 62.6 degrees, according to the National Climatic Data Center, the branch of the U.S. government that keeps world weather records. June was only slightly cooler, while August could set another record, scientists say. The previous record was set in July 1998 during a powerful El Nino.

In hot water: World sets ocean temperature record (Update)

And on a related topic considering the consequences.....

Our results suggest that a critical gas column exists below most hydrate provinces in basin settings, implying that these provinces are poised for mechanical failure and are therefore highly sensitive to changes in ambient conditions. We estimate that the global free-gas reservoir may contain from one-sixth to two-thirds of the total methane trapped in hydrate. If gas accumulations are critically thick along passive continental slopes, we calculate that a 5 °C temperature increase at the sea floor could result in a release of 2,000 Gt of methane from the free-gas zone, offering a mechanism for rapid methane release during global warming events. This estimate is conservative, in that it does not include the possibility that gas overpressures could trigger submarine landslides, which could prompt complete gas evacuation.

http://faculty.gg.uwyo.edu/holbrook/...e_hydrates.pdf

[SaucySailoress]

These here corals were pink and orange a few months ago

[hpeer]

A brief NASA animation for those who wish to view.

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000...ates_30fps.m4v

[Eleven]

The UK has had the worst snow fall for many years, and before xmas (most unusual) and the Indian Continent and Australia have both been having some extremes of weather too.
These are generally sited as worst for a hundred years!
But there is a nasty trend to it all that no amount of Government Regulations will resolve.
Individually we have got to go native, look after our own patch.
Use less, throw away with care, and help out neighbours.
In the UK there are now three times more people than when I was a nipper. How do we slow down the human race?

[hpeer]

Eleven,

Right to the core of the matter.

Frankly I don't think we do slow the human race, the human race will slow itself by hitting a brick wall.

Here is another thread you may find of interest as well.

sailboat-for-when-the-s-hits-the-fan-getaway

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...way-35725.html

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by Eleven

The UK has had the worst snow fall for many years, and before xmas (most unusual) and the Indian Continent and Australia have both been having some extremes of weather too.
These are generally sited as worst for a hundred years!
But there is a nasty trend to it all that no amount of Government Regulations will resolve.
Individually we have got to go native, look after our own patch.
Use less, throw away with care, and help out neighbours.
In the UK there are now three times more people than when I was a nipper. How do we slow down the human race?

Obviously our present population is unstainable if (as predicted) the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse arrive with a vengence.

My plan is that when things start running out is to start killing folks - before they start killing me. I strogly suspect I am not alone on that idea. I figure the trick (for legal reasons) is not starting too early - nor (for practical reasons) starting too late.

Honestly

I am surprised that by now I've never seen anyone build there house on stilts around here, nor that the UK Govt does not now require that............ a real puzzle

[Whimsy]

Originally Posted by hpeer

...Frankly I don't think we do slow the human race, the human race will slow itself by hitting a brick wall...

That's all fine and well, if it happens like you say, or if it doesn't. Either way, its natural.

Some believe it will happen, but clearly many more, on a global scale, just don't. The "deniers" either don’t believe the problem is as bad as some say, or believe that human genius will rise to deal with it as needed, as humans have done since... well, since there have been humans. Please note that, in my mention of human genius rising to deal with problems, I do not include the current efforts of politicians to exploit popular gullibility to simultaneously grab power and cater to the voting block of idealistic greenies and the hordes of useful idiots that unthinkingly follow them.

"The rhetoric of "cap and trade" will more aptly become "trade or cap" - trade us your wallet or we'll bust a cap in your ^$$."
-- Unattributed

Originally Posted by Eleven

...How do we slow down the human race?

The question is asked as if it’s a given that to "slow down the human race" is "THE solution" to "THE problem". Its clearly not even a possibility, let alone a solution, when real, natural, historical, empirical evidence is evaluated with a little reason and common sense!

History shows that, given a certain population density (this IS a given unless you propose "eliminating" people on a massive scale), only advanced and prosperous societies are able to afford to dedicate scarce resources to maintaining their environment. People don’t become prosperous enough to solve environmental problems by "slowing down", they only become less prosperous...

It is truth, a reality incontrovertibly supported by natural and historical evidence: Only by allowing the human race to flourish and become more prosperous, at its own natural rate, not "slowing it down", is there any possibility of maintaining the environment in a way that, while maybe not perfectly pleasing to every fussy individual's standard, allows each individual to continue to live and attempt to prosper, as are his basic human rights.

"Natural rights [are] the objects for the protection of which society is formed and municipal laws established." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1797.

Even the American Leftist, B. J. Clinton, understood that prosperity is the key to human security and comfort when he adopted the phrase, "It’s the economy, stupid!" Though he may as well have said, "It’s the Liberty, stupid!", because it is human nature for individuals to create, produce, engage in commerce, thrive, prosper and to solve problems as they occur, but only to the extent that their society has freedom from coercion and freedom from tyranny. For Liberty is merely the lack of those bad things.

It is Liberty that allows prosperity, and its prosperity that allows a clean environment. And it is no strange coincidence that individual and national prosperity has diminished, and will diminish (today) almost directly to the extent that Liberty is squashed under the heavy, careless and historically dangerous hand of bloated, inefficient nanny government bureaucracy. Ironically, so much of the support for this Liberty-crushing juggernaut currently originates in the religious-cult-like "Environmental Movement".

"The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity, is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism."
-- Vaclav Klaus, Czech President

Really, "slowing down the human race" _isn’t_ even possible in the long-term because it deeply conflicts with human nature in general. The urge toward productive striving is part of human genetics. As long as there is one individual human alive, it will be his undeniable nature to do whatever he can to survive, then to improve his individual lot in life and that of his family, necessarily at the expense of some other aspect of nature. That's only natural. It is an arrogant fool that thinks he either should or can "slow down" what nature has put in place.

Isn’t it ironic that those who claim to be the most "caring" about our environment, our ecosystems and generally "nature" as a whole, are so often the ones evidently most out of touch with nature in general, and most particularly with human nature? Human nature is the most relevant part of overall nature, to humans. To deny human nature, intentionally or merely through ignorance or incompetence, in favor of any other aspect of nature is, well, unnatural and is not, to correctly use what has been perverted into a silly modern buzzword, sustainable.

And to those who say humans are not a part of nature - I'll point out that any species consistently determined to slow itself down is a species competing to win a "Darwin Award" for self-destructive behavior, and may eventually become extinct through exactly that sort of pure idiocy. Those who don’t understand human nature correctly, and try to thwart it with coercive political power have historically, in the long term, created only economic collapse, poverty, misery and death for their societies.

"The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false."
-- Paul Johnson

At great human cost. Easy to say, but the historical reality was a grueling horror for the hundreds of millions of innocent victims murdered directly by their own big governments gone wrong. Two hundred million in the 20th century alone. I doubt if any environmental threat caused by humans is as dangerous to the average individual as the government programs environmentalists advocate (and power-hungry politicians exploit) to "solve" the "problems".

How do forests turn into deserts? Prosperous individuals do not need to deforest land to get wood to build fires to cook food, and warm and light their leaky shacks. No, as individuals who live under Liberty become prosperous they invent, build and produce, mostly each for their own individual selfish reasons and individual personal gain. Things like nuclear power to make electricity, and insulation, light bulbs and cooking stoves. They harvest some trees as needed for lumber, then replant, but only because they are prosperous enough to pursue these options. And when they decide that part of the environment really needs attention, they apply themselves to fixing that with genius, technology and productivity. The air and waters of the USA are cleaner now, and more acres of land are forested, than they have been in over 150 years. Steady sensible effort works, enviro-radicalism is only a dangerous political tool.

Apparently the average individual is not convinced a crisis is at hand, as the Chicken Littles, the enviro-chondriacs and the eco-alarmists would have us believe. Those groups tend to congregate toward a common political ideal.

"Freeze or fry, the problem is always industrial capitalism, and the solution is always international socialism."
-- Dr. Malcolm Ross, Harvard, commenting on the misuse of science to support political agendas

Green is the new Red.

[hpeer]

There is a deep paradox in what you write that only the most affluent can affort to protect their environment. That analysis works when you can isolate a particular population. Part of the problem is that the subject population is getting rich but off shoring their pollution and other problems.

When you do the analysis on a global scale it works a little different. Affluence comes from resource usage. Resources are becoming more and more scarece. There is a lot of talk about Peak Oil that some deny and others embrace. The more meaningful figure is Peak Available energy per person. We peaked on that some time ago, something like 10 years, the trend is downward from there.

So, speaking very briefly and without a lot of supporting info to keep it short, World Affluence is decreasing annually.

Now on top of Peak Energy/person the science that the oceans are depleting of their fundamental 'richness' (photoplankton biomass that is the foundation to the food chain, the "oil" of the oceans) is depleting at a fairly good clip as well.

It is futile to think that we can find sufficient new energy sources to replace those that will be lost in the next generation. The only hope to stabilizing affluence is to use our energy much more efficiently.

Yet there is precious little "stewardship of the seas" going around, our primary food sources are depleting. There is precious little being do to improve our energy efficiency. No where near the scale needed.

I do agree that humans will do almost anything to retain past trajectory of development. Frankly we may be a flexible and adaptive species, but our group planning ability???????????? Not so much.

Enough for now.

[Whimsy]

Originally Posted by Therapy

Part of the dead horse is the IPCC itself. There are many instances in which what they came out with is just too far out. Part of the "scare" side.

When Hannibal crossed the alps there was much less snow and ice than there is today. Today the passes and trails he used are impassable.

Thanks. A good point. And in a similar vein, here's an article: "Himalayan glaciers not melting because of climate change, report finds"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8284223/Himalayan-glaciers-not-melting-because-of-climate-change-report-finds.html

EXCERPT:
Himalayan glaciers are actually advancing rather than retreating, claims the first major study since a controversial UN report said they would be melted within quarter of a century.

By Dean Nelson, New Delhi and Richard Alleyne 6:00AM GMT 27 Jan 2011

Researchers have discovered that contrary to popular belief half of the ice flows in the Karakoram range of the mountains are actually growing rather than shrinking.

The discovery adds a new twist to the row over whether global warming is causing the world's highest mountain range to lose its ice cover.

It further challenges claims made in a 2007 report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the glaciers would be gone by 2035.

Although the head of the panel Dr Rajendra Pachauri later admitted the claim was an error gleaned from unchecked research, he maintained that global warming was melting the glaciers at "a rapid rate", threatening floods throughout north India.

The new study by scientists at the Universities of California and Potsdam has found that half of the glaciers in the Karakoram range, in the northwestern Himalaya, are in fact advancing and that global warming is not the deciding factor in whether a glacier survives or melts.
END OF EXCERPT

And here's interesting discussion on the same topic:
http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/himalayan-glaciers-not-melting

[Whimsy]

Originally Posted by hpeer

...There is a lot of talk about Peak Oil that some deny and others embrace. The more meaningful figure is Peak Available energy per person. We peaked on that some time ago, something like 10 years, the trend is downward from there...

Your argument of "peak per capita energy" is folly. It fails to consider historical, let alone current reality, and does not stand up to even the most elementary of reasonable analysis. It is based on the old rhetorical trick, most often used for political manipulation, of assuming increasing consumption while failing to consider human ingenuity and increasing technological progress to match it.

Your argument is reminiscent of the sophomoric argument made in the 1968 scare-book, _Population Bomb_, where the (left-wing) author, Ehrlich, predicted 50% the world starving to death by 1980 (if radical action were not taken, oh my!). He made a similar mistake as you, failing to consider that human ingenuity would increase agri-technology as the population grew. Technology in that field has now outpaced population growth and the world now produces much more food per capita than it needs. Starvation is now not caused by global shortages, but mostly by politicians in governments making people poor though their policies, and criminals (sometimes politicians) hijacking aid shipments (from prosperous nations - non-prosperous nations cannot afford to give handouts) for their own personal gain.

"Politicians are like rats - what they steal for themselves is miniscule compared to what they destroy getting it."
-- unknown

Let look at some actual facts and how they compare to your speculation regarding "Peak Per Capita Energy":

In 1956, a scientist, geologist M. King Hubbert wrote "On the basis of the present estimates of the ultimate reserves of world petroleum and natural gas, it appears that the culmination of world production of these products should occur within a half a century [i.e., by 2006]." Here are Hubbert's assertions [compared with fact]:

- There was not more than 1.25 trillion barrels of crude, total, in the whole planet. [FACT: In 2010, 4 years after he said we would run out, ready-to-go reserves totaled about 1.19 trillion barrels. This is in spite of the consumption of the 1.25 trillion barrels in the mean time up to 2006, and increasing, ongoing consumption since 2006. It also excludes the world’s two biggest untapped fields, which could easily double the world reserve. It also fails to include oil trapped in shale and sands which will become economically feasible to produce as technology advances and as scarcity drives up the price of oil.]

- Arabia had no more than 375 billion barrels of oil resources, total. [FACT: Middle Eastern oil reserves today total 734 billion barrels, again, despite the depletion occurring since that prediction was made]

- The amount of oil discovered each year will stop rising by 2000, then will crash rapidly toward zero when we will have used up our allotted 1.25 trillion barrels, by 2006. [FACT: We now have more than... well, you get the idea]

This guy may have said it best:
“It’s true that there’s only twenty years’ supply left-and that’s been true for the last hundred years,” -- Lewis Lapham, Harper’s magazine

But, yes, there is a finite amount of oil to had, and yes we will run out some day, if humans survive that long. But oil is hardly the last word on energy production. It is it not reasonable to imply that since we are (slowly) running out of oil, we are also running out of energy.

In much of Europe, particularly France, modern nuclear power has proved to be a cheap, safe, quiet, "green" energy-producing fact of life. "Peak Available energy per person" production in the USA is hampered at every turn by radical environmentalism and the bureaucratic red tape that has become its most effective tool for intentionally bogging down capitalism. No new nuclear plants have been built in the US in decades, largely due to the radical environmentalist lobby. Electric cars in the USA are essentially coal powered, while in Europe, electric cars are essentially nuclear powered. Which is better?

All this brings to mind another issue, possibly the most important issue: If a scientist, a geologist, Hubbert, was so, so very wrong, yet so many other scientists, and so many millions of people bought into it... What might the lesson be regarding other drastic claims?

Hubbert, and the millions he influenced? That is miniscule compared to what is happening today.

Consider this from an article in Newsweek on Global Cooling, April 28, 1975:
"There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it."
-- Newsweek, on Global Cooling, April 28, 1975"

Consider this line from Wikipedia on the 1968 book, _The Population Bomb_, by Ehrlich: "Fears of a "population explosion" were widespread in the 1950s and 60s, but the book and its charismatic author brought the idea to an even wider audience."

It might be wise to consider the lessons of Hubbert on "Peak Oil", Newsweek on "Global Cooling", Erlich on overpopulation, and the Wikipedia observation, and then consider Al Gore's book _An Inconvenient Truth_, and the hullaballoo caused thereby.

Here's credentialed guy, in the thick of it, with astute observations on human-caused "Global Warming":
"We'll look back at this in 10 or 15 years and realize how foolish it was."
And,
"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong. But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."
-- Dr. William Gray, professor emeritus of the atmospheric department at Colorado State University

Will a Wikipedia article on Gore's book in the future read: "Fears that humans were causing "climate change" were widespread in the 1970s through about 2014, but the book and its charismatic author brought the idea to an even wider audience."?

Now consider the words of these wise men:

"The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false."
-- Paul Johnson

"To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child."
-- Cicero, 106 BC - 43 BC

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
-- George Orwell

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins..."
-- H. L. Mencken (1880-1956)

And then consider what this politician said:
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste..."
-- Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's Chief of Staff

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on ME!

Oil still hasn't "peaked". Nuclear power production is still in its infancy. It would seem the only thing that hasn’t "peaked" is the political gain to be had from scaremongering:

"... it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen to set brush fires in people's minds..."
-- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)

[mrohr]

massive bird and fish die offs too.media seems to barely touch on the causes except to reassure all the sheeple that there is nothing to worry about

[Whimsy]

Originally Posted by hpeer

There is a deep paradox in what you write that only the most affluent can affort to protect their environment.

That is a straw man you have erected, and so you are incorrect. Never did I use the word "affluent", nor did I ever say or imply "only the most affluent" could do this or that. I repeatedly used the word prosperous.

affluent
adj : having an abundant supply of money or possessions of value;
"an affluent banker"; "a speculator flush with cash";
"not merely rich but loaded"; "moneyed aristocrats";
"wealthy corporations" [syn: flush, loaded, moneyed,
wealthy]
n 1: an affluent person; a person who is financially well off;

I consider myself prosperous, but not affluent, and certainly not a member of the group you erroneously reference, "the most affluent".

Look at the 150+ nations of the world. For the most part, to the extent the people are free to work, interact, to produce, to trade and to earn and to keep private property in all its forms, and to the extent the government stays clear of their everyday lives and exists only to protect them and their natural rights, the people are prosperous and the environment will be cleaned up and maintained. It's human nature to prosper where there is freedom from coercion. Where the people are subject to excessive coercive interference from politicians and governments, the people are poor and cannot spare the resources to clean up after them selves as they struggle to provide first for the government and hope to have a few pennies left over to feed themselves.

You can often even see examples of that in microcosms within cities - the poor areas are trashed, the prosperous areas are well kept.

People are people and will thrive and prosper if given a chance. But politicians and governments...:

"No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind."
-- Thomas Sowell

"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs."
-- P.J. O'Rourke

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."
--Thomas Jefferson

"Politicians, Like Bombers, Seldom See Their Victims..."
-- Dr. Donald Boudreaux

[hpeer]

Scientific American weighs in





Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense

Evidence for human interference with Earth's climate continues to accumulate


Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense: Scientific American

[Bergovoy]

first off, it should be noted that we should always make sure we dont waste and or use as little resources as possible to maintain our lives... but. and this is not DENIAL... but rather, PERSPECTIVE

You can take all the people in the world and palce them all in Texas... they would be albe to stand comfortably next to each other...

you can take them all and place them in Southern California and have a couple hunderd feet of space each..


there cant possibly be too many people... NOW, is there too many people to manage properly? Is this lack of perspective used against us... HELL YES...

the excuse that there arent sufficient resources for us is BULL CRAP... we are so scared of mis using, and or polluting or affecting that we dont touch and or make it 'feasible' to attain...

the use of amazon forest should be a no brainer... The use and cultvation of Palm Oil, HELL YEA...

the use of Plankton for Ethanol a BIG HELL YEA

The ecologist are feeding into the capitalists hands... the prices are inflated beyond what is reasonable, and it is the employers that are screwing over the employees to make things inaccessible.

will things auto correct, another HELL YEA.. prices, wages, resources etc..

will there always be a two class society.. yes, unfortunately.

will there always be a two party politic system... yup, see above..

things will never change... every, unless it is radical...and will be resisted by teh parties, mentioned above...

we can and will argue about nuts and bolts and things that matter and dont... and that is our role in society...

the big things will be decided for us and will jsut adapt and bitch about it...

[David_Old_Jersey]

Not being a Climate Creationist I am not familiar with the finer points of the Woo that comes with Climate "Science"..........but my guess is that if the Climate had been never changing until the advent of man that there would be a lot more Dinosaurs around than at present.

But of course the Climate Fundies don't beleive in Fossils Bad Science I guess