Politics Global Warming - My thoughts/questions

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Denny Crane said:
So the fishing industry organizations want to kill the rest of the fish so they won't have anything to catch and sell anymore?

LOL

It's still ONE fish, not the entire ocean like you claimed.
Click to expand...

It's not one fish. I've provided quotes and links.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Wrong.

Many marine scientists consider overfishing to be the greatest of these threats. The Census of Marine Life, a decade-long international survey of ocean life completed in 2010, estimated that 90% of the big fish had disappeared from the world's oceans, victims primarily of overfishing.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/22/world/oceans-overfishing-climate-change/
Click to expand...

Do you read your own links? Click on them and see they're posted by a bunch of left wing environmental whackos.
 
Denny Crane said:
Do you read your own links? Click on them and see they're posted by a bunch of left wing environmental whackos.
Click to expand...

I'm bringing you links from CNN, National Geographic, Nature and you're providing links to pro fishing industry websites.
 
When do the "Scientist" start advocating some thing that will work? Like a reduction in the top predator.
Just whining about his effectiveness is not getting it done.
These weenies are just passing gas and contributing to the problem.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
I'm bringing you links from CNN, National Geographic, Nature and you're providing links to pro fishing industry websites.
Click to expand...

The quality of your links are not relevant to the factual content, are they?

If you want a quality link, how about the New England Aquarium?

http://www.neaq.org/conservation_an...-friendly_seafood/species/pacific_halibut.php

Conservation Notes
Some popular seafood species have a history of being managed ineffectively, which can often result in population declines that can take many years or decades to reverse. The Pacific halibut fishery, however, is managed in such a way as to maintain healthy populations and ensure the fishery does not negatively impact the ecosystem.
 
The Canadian Government

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/sustainable-durable/fisheries-peches/halibut-fletan-eng.htm

The coastwide assessment estimates commercially harvestable biomass of halibut to have declined by approximately 50 percent over the past decade and that the average size-at-age for all fish has been decreasing -- a trend continuing from recent years. However, due to the very high number of young halibut in the water, which are not yet included in exploitable biomass estimates, it is believed that total halibut biomass is near an all-time high. From the age data available, it appears halibut born in 1999 and 2000 (referred to as year classes) are now entering the fishery at a relatively strong rate. Projections suggest that spawning biomass will increase and exploitable biomass will be stable in the near future.
 
Denny Crane said:
Pacific halibut fishery
Click to expand...

The management of that is a total scam here in Oregon. The state charges and unreasonable fee for a Halibut tag. The season is only open a few specific days, usually when it is too friggin nasty out there to go fishing. So most people never do it. The State gets the money and 90% of the guys that buy a tag, don't even get to try due to spring storms.
 
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/grandbanks.htm

There are special problems involved in sampling a fish population. Fish tend to congregate in schools. Even with any proclivity of fish to seek each other there would be concentrations of fish populations in the areas of the best feeding. Thus even when the codfish population of the Grand Banks was getting low there would be areas of high density of cod.

The supervision of the Grand Banks became the responsibility of the Canadian Department of Fisheris and Oceans (DFO). The DFO did random sampling of areas of the Grand Banks to estimate the total stock of cod fish. The DFO's estimates of cod population became a matter of political controversy. Fishermen, not understanding the concept of random sampling, objected to the DFO's estimate on the basis that the DFO had sampled in a lot of places where there were no fish instead of only sampling where there were a lot of fish.

The fishermen had other reasons to doubt the validity of the DFO's cod population estimates. When the DFO sent a government trawler to fish along side of private company trawlers the private trawlers caught several times more fish than the government trawler as a result of more effective use of the same sort of equipment. For example, the private trawlers were careful to keep the lines to the nets of equal length where as the government trawler did not which led to the net being skewed.

:lol:
 
Denny Crane said:
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/grandbanks.htm

There are special problems involved in sampling a fish population. Fish tend to congregate in schools. Even with any proclivity of fish to seek each other there would be concentrations of fish populations in the areas of the best feeding. Thus even when the codfish population of the Grand Banks was getting low there would be areas of high density of cod.

The supervision of the Grand Banks became the responsibility of the Canadian Department of Fisheris and Oceans (DFO). The DFO did random sampling of areas of the Grand Banks to estimate the total stock of cod fish. The DFO's estimates of cod population became a matter of political controversy. Fishermen, not understanding the concept of random sampling, objected to the DFO's estimate on the basis that the DFO had sampled in a lot of places where there were no fish instead of only sampling where there were a lot of fish.

The fishermen had other reasons to doubt the validity of the DFO's cod population estimates. When the DFO sent a government trawler to fish along side of private company trawlers the private trawlers caught several times more fish than the government trawler as a result of more effective use of the same sort of equipment. For example, the private trawlers were careful to keep the lines to the nets of equal length where as the government trawler did not which led to the net being skewed.

:lol:
Click to expand...

Did you read the rest of your link? Next paragraph from your link:

The DFO formulated a mathematical model of the cod fish population which they used to calculate the maximum sustainable yield (MSY). The U.S. government had a similar concept which was called optimal yield. These models were single species models that did not take into account the complexity of the fish eco-system. They were, in a word, defective.

In 1989 the DFO advised that the total allowable catch (TAC) of codfish should be 125,000 tons. The Canadian Minister of Fisheries thought this figure was too low and arbitrarily increased it to 235,00 tons. In the course of DFO management the TAC was often set by negotiation between the DFO, the fishing industry and politicians. The DFO, using their defective model, was setting setting the TAC too high. The politicians responding to pressure from the industry increased the TAC from the already too high figures. The net result was that in the last years of codfishing on the Grand Banks the catch was about 60 percent of the population instead of 16 percent. The collapse was catastrophic. In January of 1992 the DFO was advising that the TAC should be 185,000 tons. By June of 1992 the DFO was advising that the cod fishing should be stopped.


Denny, the article you linked to and quoted from is called The Collapse of Cod Fishery of the Grand Banks. You do understand what that means right?


Collapse of the Atlantic northwest cod fishery

In 1992 the Federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans declared a moratorium on the Northern Cod fishery, which for the past 500 years had largely shaped the lives and communities of Canada's eastern coast. The interplay between fishing societies and the resources which they depend on is obvious to almost any observer: fisheries transform the ecosystem, which pushes the fishery and society to adapt.[2] In the summer of 1992, when the Northern Cod biomass fell to 1% of its earlier level,[3] Canada's federal government saw that this relationship had been pushed to breaking point, and declared a moratorium, ending the region's 500-year run with the Northern Cod.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Atlantic_northwest_cod_fishery
 
Denny, you're going from posting pro industry links, to posting recipes and now posting articles that support what I was saying. This is kinda funny.
 
Study: Dead sea creatures cover 98 percent of ocean floor off California coast; up from 1 percent before Fukushima

The Pacific Ocean appears to be dying, according to a new study recently published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Scientists from the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) in California recently discovered that the number of dead sea creatures blanketing the floor of the Pacific is higher than it has ever been in the 24 years that monitoring has taken place, a phenomenon that the data suggests is a direct consequence of nuclear fallout from Fukushima.

Though the researchers involved with the work have been reluctant to pin Fukushima as a potential cause -- National Geographic, which covered the study recently, did not even mention Fukushima -- the timing of the discovery suggests that Fukushima is, perhaps, the cause. According to the data, this sudden explosion in so-called "sea snot," which is the name given to the masses of dead sea creatures that sink to the ocean floor as food, has skyrocketed since the Fukushima incident occurred.

"In the 24 years of this study, the past two years have been the biggest amounts of this detritus by far," stated Christine Huffard, a marine biologist at MBARI and leader of the study, to National Geographic.

At an ocean research station known as Station M, located 145 miles out to sea between the Californian cities of Santa Barbara and Monterey, Huffard and her colleague Ken Smith observed a sharp uptick in the amount of dead sea life drifting to the ocean floor. The masses of dead sea plankton, jellyfish, feces and other oceanic matter that typically only cover about 1 percent of the ocean floor were found to now be covering about 98 percent of it -- and multiple other stations located throughout the Pacific have since reported similar figures.

"In March 2012, less than one percent of the seafloor beneath Station M was covered in dead sea salps," writes Carrie Arnold for National Geographic. "By July 1, more than 98 percent of it was covered in the decomposing organisms. ... The major increase in activity of deep-sea life in 2011 and 2012 weren't limit to Station M, though: Other ocean-research stations reported similar data."

No more sea life means no more oxygen in our atmosphere
Interestingly, Arnold does not even make a peep about Fukushima, which by all common sense is the most reasonable explanation for this sudden increase in dead sea life. Though the most significant increases were observed roughly a year after the incident, the study makes mention of the fact that the problems first began in 2011.

"Forget looking at global warming as the culprit," writes National Geographic commenter "Grammy," pointing out the lunacy of Arnold's implication that the now-debunked global warming myth was the sudden cause of a 9,700 percent increase in dead sea life.

Backing her up, another National Geographic commenter jokingly stated that somehow "the earth took such a huge hit in a four-month timeframe of a meltdown via global warming and we as a people didn't recognize this while [it was] happening; while coincidentally during that same time frame the event at Fukushima took place."

It is almost as if the powers that be want us all to forget about Fukushima and the catastrophic damage it continues to cause to our planet. But they will not be able to cover up the truth forever, as human life is dependent upon healthy oceans, the life of which provides the oxygen that we all need to breathe and survive.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.pnas.org

http://enenews.com

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com

http://science.naturalnews.com


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/043380_Fukushima_radiation_ocean_life.html##ixzz3Vw0QDKWB


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/043380_Fukushima_radiation_ocean_life.html#ixzz3Vw0CbbwJ
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Denny, you're going from posting pro industry links, to posting recipes and now posting articles that support what I was saying. This is kinda funny.
Click to expand...

Your articles are cherry picked data about a few species. You don't bother to balance out the claims in the left wing blather you cite with other sources of equal or more expertise. You complain about my sources, yet you do nothing to refute any of the facts presented in them (because you can't?).

I posted one link that showed you that one of the species supposedly in danger is at an all time high in population and by weight. The sources for your articles don't count those fish because they're young.

I posted another link about how the government and it's models were based upon how many fish they could catch while the pro fisherman in the same boat with the same equipment caught many times more fish. That would mean the government's estimate is way below what the reality is. You know, they sample/count fish where the school of fish aren't.

You question the integrity (or whatever) of the sources of my links, while you post links with Global Warming in the title. That's good for a huge laugh. Two times the SCARE in one article! Someone is going to get extra funding out of that one.

Yet you mock the New England Aquarium as a source for some reason. They're not a fishing organization as you claim are my sources.

Most of your articles talk about overfishing of a handful of species.

Overfishing. So for hundreds of years (at least 400, more like 500) they've been catching fish. They've not been catching enough of certain fish to dwindle the population to 5% over that time. For the most part, they catch an excess of the abundance of fish and leave plenty to allow the fish to procreate and maintain an abundance. Only for a few years did they overfish, and recently, and under government approval. Even then, the population losses aren't fully explained by fishing and the scientists are at a loss as to why.

You said the oceans are dead. That's complete and utter bullshit.

While a handful of species seem to have been overfished for a short period, most of the populations recover and do fine. When the government reduces the limit on the number of fish that can be caught (by weight), they increase the limit on other fish that are plentiful. Plentiful as in, the oceans aren't dead.

MARIS' article is good for a laugh, too, but at least it suggests other possibilities for fish dying other than fishing. A disease can wipe out a huge chunk of a population. Or a lack of plankton in normal feeding grounds causes starvation.

I don't think you're open to the reality.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Did you read the rest of your link? Next paragraph from your link:

The DFO formulated a mathematical model of the cod fish population which they used to calculate the maximum sustainable yield (MSY). The U.S. government had a similar concept which was called optimal yield. These models were single species models that did not take into account the complexity of the fish eco-system. They were, in a word, defective.

In 1989 the DFO advised that the total allowable catch (TAC) of codfish should be 125,000 tons. The Canadian Minister of Fisheries thought this figure was too low and arbitrarily increased it to 235,00 tons. In the course of DFO management the TAC was often set by negotiation between the DFO, the fishing industry and politicians. The DFO, using their defective model, was setting setting the TAC too high. The politicians responding to pressure from the industry increased the TAC from the already too high figures. The net result was that in the last years of codfishing on the Grand Banks the catch was about 60 percent of the population instead of 16 percent. The collapse was catastrophic. In January of 1992 the DFO was advising that the TAC should be 185,000 tons. By June of 1992 the DFO was advising that the cod fishing should be stopped.


Denny, the article you linked to and quoted from is called The Collapse of Cod Fishery of the Grand Banks. You do understand what that means right?


Collapse of the Atlantic northwest cod fishery

In 1992 the Federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans declared a moratorium on the Northern Cod fishery, which for the past 500 years had largely shaped the lives and communities of Canada's eastern coast. The interplay between fishing societies and the resources which they depend on is obvious to almost any observer: fisheries transform the ecosystem, which pushes the fishery and society to adapt.[2] In the summer of 1992, when the Northern Cod biomass fell to 1% of its earlier level,[3] Canada's federal government saw that this relationship had been pushed to breaking point, and declared a moratorium, ending the region's 500-year run with the Northern Cod.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Atlantic_northwest_cod_fishery
Click to expand...

http://barentsportal.com/barentspor...s-2013/830-updated-2013-fish-cod-gadus-morhua

Based on 2013 estimates of SSB (Figure 4.3.14), ICES classifies the Barents Sea cod stock as having full reproductive capacity and being harvested sustainably. Estimated SSB has been above Bpa since 2002 and is now at a record high level, while total stock biomass is at a level not seen since the early 1950s. The present stock is dominated by large individuals from the very abundant 2004-2006 year classes.

Among fish species, cod is the most important predator in the Barents Sea. It feeds on a wide variety of prey, including: larger zooplankton; most available fish species, as well as juvenile cod; and shrimp. Capelin is a preferred forage fish for cod. Diet analyses indicate that the main prey items for cod in 2012-2013 were capelin, juvenile cod, shrimp, euphausiids (krill), amphipods, and haddock. Estimated total annual consumption by cod (age 1 and older) in 2012-2013 was 6-7 million metric tons.

The geographic distribution of this stock is expanding to the north and east (Figure 4.3.15). This is related to high temperatures observed in the Barents Sea during recent years as well as increased abundance.

res_fish_300_169.jpg


(But thanks for pointing out how flawed computer models are, I've been saying that for a long time).
​
 
Last edited:
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/gee...opulations-others-still-suffer-184002315.html

According to a new study, over-exploited fish species are capable of recovering from low populations, but some fish species have been so extensively over-fished that they may never recover.

This study, which examined the resiliency of 153 different species of fish and invertebrate whose populations had been reduced to less than 50 per cent of their 'sustainable yield', found that over-fishing actually enhanced the ability of some species to bounce back.

"My hypothesis, based on prior studies, was that marine stocks that had been overexploited for a long time would have a harder time coming back," said Philipp Neubauer, a post-doc researcher at Rutgers University in New Jersey who is one of the co-authors of the study, according to a news release. "So this was a bit of a surprise."
 
Denny, I presented multiple articles saying that we have/are over fishing the oceans. 90% of the large fish are gone. You accuse me misreading and that is only one species of fish. I say no and post more articles. You say again it's only one species of fish. I post more articles showing you that it's multiple species. Then you claim they're not dying from fishing. You follow that up with something from an aquarium that is closer to being a book report then anything scientific. It starts off talking about how tasty fish are and it includes recipes. I've never seen a scientific article that includes recipes. Then you to top it off you post an article showing that you either didn't read all of it or you intentionally didn't include the most important information. That information being that they over fished to such an extreme that hey had to shut down an entire fishery/industry. When I point that out to you, you follow that up with, "see, scientists are wrong" and use that to claim that everything is alright.
 
3RA1N1AC said:
The coral reefs though
Click to expand...

We shouldn't dump raw sewage and chemicals in the ocean or lakes or streams.

We can do something about that.

I know we are very good about it in San Diego, because we treasure our beaches.

But we cannot control what they do outside the U.S.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Denny, I presented multiple articles saying that we have/are over fishing the oceans. 90% of the large fish are gone. You accuse me misreading and that is only one species of fish. I say no and post more articles. You say again it's only one species of fish. I post more articles showing you that it's multiple species. Then you claim they're not dying from fishing. You follow that up with something from an aquarium that is closer to being a book report then anything scientific. It starts off talking about how tasty fish are and it includes recipes. I've never seen a scientific article that includes recipes. Then you to top it off you post an article showing that you either didn't read all of it or you intentionally didn't include the most important information. That information being that they over fished to such an extreme that hey had to shut down an entire fishery/industry. When I point that out to you, you follow that up with, "see, scientists are wrong" and use that to claim that everything is alright.
Click to expand...

90% of the large fish are not gone.

Any deeper look at the claims in the tree hugger sources you're providing says so.

I don't think you're willing to look at the veracity of the claims made.

The aquarium works with fish 24/7/365. I'm not sure they have much of an agenda other than to fund their projects. You're not gaining any traction by assailing that source. So what if they present more information about Halibut than you're comfortable with?

How long and when did these populations get overfished? I think the issue is a lot more complicated than you seem to understand.

If there are 1M fish, and they catch 500K and the remaining 500K breed more fish, it is SUSTAINABLE. It has been sustainable for hundreds of years.

The people you trust to shut down an entire fishery/industry (they didn't actually do that, though) allowed the overfishing to happen. Think about it.
 
All this started because you said the oceans were dead.

They're not. End of story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top