Climate Change

[futurecurrents]

The reduction in cod population has been occurring since the 1700s. It is due to overfishing and has nothing to do with "global warming".

You can't read can you? Plus, you seem to think that you know more than the experts. Armed with nothing more than ideology an ignorance. Amazing.

"The Gulf of Maine’s waters are warming — faster than almost any ocean waters on earth, scientists say — and fish are voting with their fins for cooler places to live. That is upending an ecosystem and the fishing industry that depends on it."

 

[gwb-trading]

You can't read can you? Plus, you seem to think that you know more than the experts. Armed with nothing more than ideology an ignorance. Amazing.

"The Gulf of Maine’s waters are warming — faster than almost any ocean waters on earth, scientists say — and fish are voting with their fins for cooler places to live. That is upending an ecosystem and the fishing industry that depends on it."

Of course you ignore quotes from the article like the following -

"But many other fishermen do not blame climate change. They blame the regulators, calling the moratorium cruel and needless, because they say their latest cod catches are actually better than in recent years. More than a few talk of a conspiracy between scientists and environmentalists to manufacture a fishing crisis that will justify their jobs."

"That said, much about warming’s effect on the gulf remains unclear. Years of overfishing have winnowed some fish populations, muddling efforts to measure climate change’s impact. Fishermen, scientists and regulators often disagree over whether the current changes are temporary or the new normal."

As someone who worked on a lobster boat during my teen years (my mother's family members either fish or are cops) - let me say that the change in lobster fishing and cod fishing with declining stocks has been going on for many generations - it is not due to "global warming". Changes in temperature (both up and down) over many decades has caused the stock of particular fish to move either up or down the Atlantic coast. Most of the temperatures are due to shifts in the Gulf Stream coming up the coast, not due to "global warming". The temperature changes have swung +/-3 degrees every 30 years or so in a cycle - and are not due to AGW.

The real problems with declining fish populations involve over-fishing - this problem has been occurring since the 1700s - and has nothing to do with "global warming".

 

[futurecurrents]

Oh wow fishermen don't blame climate change. Well that settles it then. And they blame the regulators, what a surprise! And they think it's a conspiracy! Yes lobster fishermen have always been known for their education and intelligence and love of fishing regulations.

The declining codfish population is due to both over-fishing in the past and current ocean warming due to global warming. Cod are a cold water fish. I'll go with the ocean scientists on this.

As an aside, I was a lab technician in charge of maintaining a research population of blue lobsters at an ocean science lab in Montauk. The local population of lobsters in Long Island Sound has crashed, partly due to warming waters. The southern range of lobsters was always around here and in the ocean they are still hanging on but in the sound they are essentially gone.

Interesting that we both worked with lobsters.

 

[Max E.]

As an aside, I was a lab technician in charge of maintaining a research population of blue lobsters at an ocean science lab in Montauk.

In other words, you are so goddamn stupid you had to take a job feeding somebodys fish for them, my 4 year old nephew is already smart enough to feed his goldfish, so i wouldnt be bragging to much about this job.

 

[gwb-trading]

Oh wow fishermen don't blame climate change. Well that settles it then. And they blame the regulators, what a surprise! And they think it's a conspiracy! Yes lobster fishermen have always been known for their education and intelligence and love of fishing regulations.

The declining codfish population is due to both over-fishing in the past and current ocean warming due to global warming. Cod are a cold water fish. I'll go with the ocean scientists on this.

As an aside, I was a lab technician in charge of maintaining a research population of blue lobsters at an ocean science lab in Montauk. The local population of lobsters in Long Island Sound has crashed, partly due to warming waters. The southern range of lobsters was always around here and in the ocean they are still hanging on but in the sound they are essentially gone.

Interesting that we both worked with lobsters.

My uncle ran a lobster boat out of Port Washington in Long Island Sound for many years. He quit Long Island and moved to Maine when the Lobster population in western Long Island Sound died off suddenly in the late 90s. He has passed and his son currently runs the boat.

The lobster population in western Long Island Sound died off in the late 90s due to a combination of pollution, pesticide run-off, sewage treatment plant run-off, the paramoeba parasite, low oxygen levels and changes in the stratification of water due to Hurricane Floyd in September 1999.

 

[dbphoenix]

In 1975, I wrote an article for Newsweek about “global cooling.” Climate change deniers have been using it ever since.

 

[futurecurrents]

And that guy continues to be a dope. He fails to mention something very important. The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet.

 

[gwb-trading]

And that guy continues to be a dope. He fails to mention something very important. The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet.

Yes, he is still a dope. But he is a dope because he is back-pedaling against what he wrote, and attempting to throw everything in his limited arsenal at it in an attempt to re-write history - and change the context. Any reasonable parsing shows the article is a complete failure... and the author comes out looking like a donkey. But not due to "there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet" in the 1970s - this assertion is simply not true.

 

[futurecurrents]

However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers (Peterson 2008).

Scientific Consensus
In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"

This is in strong contrast with the current position of the US National Academy of Sciences:"...there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action." This is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.

 

[gwb-trading]

However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers (Peterson 2008).

Scientific Consensus
In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"

This is in strong contrast with the current position of the US National Academy of Sciences:"...there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action." This is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.

Here is a hint -- go back to the previous posts. There was a list of papers published in the 1970s predicting global cooking linked here. There were far more than 7 papers. Your chart above is pure fabrication.