Science Scientists raise alert as ocean plankton levels plummet.

[SlyPokerDog]

Scientists raise alert as ocean plankton levels plummet. "Alarm bells start going off because it means that something fundamental may have changed in the food web." Plankton provide about 70% of the oxygen humans breathe.

 

[julius]

I don't know what you're talking about, I'm breathing just fine.

 

[Further]

plancton plummeting is a natural cycle. Happens all the time. Not human related. ...cough, cough....can't b, can't br, huuhhuhh, wheezeezeze, cough

 

[lawai'a]

Scientists raise alert as ocean plankton levels plummet. "Alarm bells start going off because it means that something fundamental may have changed in the food web." Plankton provide about 70% of the oxygen humans breathe.

https://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/plankton_elnino.html
how come nasa gets it but can't get certain folks in washington dc to? follow the money. i remember about 30 years ago some folks were ready to seed the gulfstream with iron to try and make up for the shortfalls in plankton production at the time(read here has been going on for a while, just more dramatic declines recently).

 

[Chris Craig]

Natural cycle? Rising global temperatures? Increased populations of marine animals that feed on plankton? When do we start seeing oxygen become a precious resource bottled and sold in stores? Don't we already have machines that can make oxygen?

 

[e_blazer]

Since Denny isn't keeping up his naysayer responsibilities around here, I may as well post this article (with no personal ax to grind on the topic) that I found while doing a google search on the issue:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/15/the-phytoplankton-decline-is-there-anything-to-it/

 

[lawai'a]

Since Denny isn't keeping up his naysayer responsibilities around here, I may as well post this article (with no personal ax to grind on the topic) that I found while doing a google search on the issue:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/15/the-phytoplankton-decline-is-there-anything-to-it/

much of the piece spoke to stratification and layering despite increases in net populations. one of the issues thus becomes availability of the resource to prey species. not all are able to transmigrate the mixing layers to feed. nearshore species who's larvae and fry require this population can decrease rapidly and drastically. fish populations are thus negatively impacted all the way up the chain with apex predators often taking the largest hits. these declines relative to localized populations have been linked to short and long term stock crashes. ask a fisherman about fish?

 

[Lanny]

Scientists raise alert as ocean plankton levels plummet. "Alarm bells start going off because it means that something fundamental may have changed in the food web." Plankton provide about 70% of the oxygen humans breathe.

The level of coral has also plummeted.

 

[Lanny]

much of the piece spoke to stratification and layering despite increases in net populations. one of the issues thus becomes availability of the resource to prey species. not all are able to transmigrate the mixing layers to feed. nearshore species who's larvae and fry require this population can decrease rapidly and drastically. fish populations are thus negatively impacted all the way up the chain with apex predators often taking the largest hits. these declines relative to localized populations have been linked to short and long term stock crashes. ask a fisherman about fish?

Are you a marine biologist?

 

[Lanny]

Natural cycle? Rising global temperatures? Increased populations of marine animals that feed on plankton? When do we start seeing oxygen become a precious resource bottled and sold in stores? Don't we already have machines that can make oxygen?

We see it right now in Beijing.
By the way, there are places right here in the United States where you need to buy bottled water unless you don't mind cancer.

 

[MARIS61]

Fukushima.

Been warning you for years, wake the fuck up.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Fukushima.

Been warning you for years, wake the fuck up.

You didn't read the article.

 

[lawai'a]

Are you a marine biologist?

i am a stakeholder. lawai'a is hawaiian for fisherman, but more, it also defines one as a steward of the resource. for 40+ years it is how i fed my family. much more than just a passing interest in the subjects of fisheries and fisheries management decisions and the science behind them.

 

[lawai'a]

You didn't read the article.

not even in question form, lol. some how you knew!!!

 

[Stevenson]

Are you a marine biologist?

No, but I play one on TV.

 

[lawai'a]

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/section/ocean-shock/
you will find in the link a series of well written and documented pieces on some of the current problems in the ocean ecosystem that can be linked to the long term warming ocean trends.

 

[MARIS61]

You didn't read the article.

Of course I did.

 

[Lanny]

No, but I play one on TV.

Yesterday, I couldn't spell oceanographer and now I are one.

 

[oldfisherman]

As Lawai'a mentions in a previous post, about 30 years ago, there was a big scare over the declining plankton levels. Global warming was not an issue then.

I remember reading one study about the decline that tied it to the increase in the jellyfish population, who feed on plankton.

This study made the claim that jellyfish were the most damaging to plankton levels, which created a break in the food chain, resulting in declining fish populations.

I do not believe jellyfish are the only reason for the decline. Nor do I believe global warming is the only reason for the decline.

I believe there are many reasons for the decline, not just global warming and jellyfish.

 

[Lanny]

As Lawai'a mentions in a previous post, about 30 years ago, there was a big scare over the declining plankton levels. Global warming was not an issue then.

I remember reading one study about the decline that tied it to the increase in the jellyfish population, who feed on plankton.

This study made the claim that jellyfish were the most damaging to plankton levels, which created a break in the food chain, resulting in declining fish populations.

I do not believe jellyfish are the only reason for the decline. Nor do I believe global warming is the only reason for the decline.

I believe there are many reasons for the decline, not just global warming and jellyfish.

How about scientific analysis? Do you believe in that?

 

[MarAzul]

How about scientific analysis? Do you believe in that?

Seems as if we have been here before Lanny. About Scripp's being a reliable source.

 

[lawai'a]

As Lawai'a mentions in a previous post, about 30 years ago, there was a big scare over the declining plankton levels. Global warming was not an issue then.

I remember reading one study about the decline that tied it to the increase in the jellyfish population, who feed on plankton.

This study made the claim that jellyfish were the most damaging to plankton levels, which created a break in the food chain, resulting in declining fish populations.

I do not believe jellyfish are the only reason for the decline. Nor do I believe global warming is the only reason for the decline.

I believe there are many reasons for the decline, not just global warming and jellyfish.

https://www.pnas.org/content/110/3/1000
a scientific article of long term data analysis that says there isn't enough data about jellys to come to conclusions, pretty much backing your conclusion.
acidification of the oceans concerns me more than jelly population blooms. this i believe can be linked to greenhouse gas production of the last century or so. though not all man made, we are responsible for much of it.

 

[oldfisherman]

https://www.pnas.org/content/110/3/1000
a scientific article of long term data analysis that says there isn't enough data about jellys to come to conclusions, pretty much backing your conclusion.
acidification of the oceans concerns me more than jelly population blooms. this i believe can be linked to greenhouse gas production of the last century or so. though not all man made, we are responsible for much of it.

I have questions for you.

Are there new satellites that measure the amount of plankton. Or, are they using the satellites that measure chlorophyll and water temp?

I believe they are using the chlorophyll satellites to measure the amount of sunlight that is reflected and absorbed to determine plankton levels. But I am not 100% sure my info is up to date.

The reason for the question is. If they are using the chlorophyll and water temp satellites, they have been in use for at least 15 years. Which would give them a much longer time period to study then being reported in some of the articles in this thread.

I was using the chlorophyll and water temp satellite info at least 15 years ago to determine where I would fish in the ocean.

I do not know how long these satellites have been in use. But. Our Navy was using these satellites before they were available on line to the public.

My point is . NASA has these records that go back way longer than has been studied for plankton levels. Or at least the part of the study being reported.

 

[Lanny]

I have questions for you.

Are there new satellites that measure the amount of plankton. Or, are they using the satellites that measure chlorophyll and water temp?

I believe they are using the chlorophyll satellites to measure the amount of sunlight that is reflected and absorbed to determine plankton levels. But I am not 100% sure my info is up to date.

The reason for the question is. If they are using the chlorophyll and water temp satellites, they have been in use for at least 15 years. Which would give them a much longer time period to study then being reported in some of the articles in this thread.

I was using the chlorophyll and water temp satellite info at least 15 years ago to determine where I would fish in the ocean.

I do not know how long these satellites have been in use. But. Our Navy was using these satellites before they were available on line to the public.

My point is . NASA has these records that go back way longer than has been studied for plankton levels. Or at least the part of the study being reported.

NOAA is compiling this data at the present.
It turns out that somewhere around 50% of the Earths Oxygen comes from phytoplankton so it's kind of important.

 

[riverman]

Fukushima.

I no longer own a shima...I gave it to Sly

 

[lawai'a]

I have questions for you.

Are there new satellites that measure the amount of plankton. Or, are they using the satellites that measure chlorophyll and water temp?

I believe they are using the chlorophyll satellites to measure the amount of sunlight that is reflected and absorbed to determine plankton levels. But I am not 100% sure my info is up to date.

The reason for the question is. If they are using the chlorophyll and water temp satellites, they have been in use for at least 15 years. Which would give them a much longer time period to study then being reported in some of the articles in this thread.

I was using the chlorophyll and water temp satellite info at least 15 years ago to determine where I would fish in the ocean.

I do not know how long these satellites have been in use. But. Our Navy was using these satellites before they were available on line to the public.

My point is . NASA has these records that go back way longer than has been studied for plankton levels. Or at least the part of the study being reported.

i honestly don't know if we are using the same satellites, but like yourself i still subscribe to one of the online data compilation sights. the info i can access daily is much the same as 15 years ago,
and does measure chlorophyll as you described.
https://www.ott.com/blog/2015/07/phytoplankton-measurement-with-fluorometers/
it seems that at-sea real time measurements have improved with these arrays described in linked article.
here in hawaii, the radar telemetry satellite is more usefully to predict current direction and speed. often temperature and chlorophyll data is dated of our location, and cloud cover also limits it.
there is another sight that utilizes realtime military satellite data for its current forecast modeling and a couple of bouys that measured for chlorophyll, but the hilo one was lost in 2017. its' sensor may have been a fluorometer .
http://www.pacioos.hawaii.edu/currents/model-hawaii/
predicting the next days currents allows me to also predict the areas of greatest upwellings and, yup, plankton production through bathymetric/satellite charts. it helps, cause couple years ago diesel was $5/gallon.
as far as the data compilation from the past goes, i am unaware of where it can be accessed and not sure if 15 or even 50 years would be enough to draw real conclusions though we would certainly be able to show trends in the data if any are there.

 

[oldfisherman]

i honestly don't know if we are using the same satellites, but like yourself i still subscribe to one of the online data compilation sights. the info i can access daily is much the same as 15 years ago,
and does measure chlorophyll as you described.
https://www.ott.com/blog/2015/07/phytoplankton-measurement-with-fluorometers/
it seems that at-sea real time measurements have improved with these arrays described in linked article.
here in hawaii, the radar telemetry satellite is more usefully to predict current direction and speed. often temperature and chlorophyll data is dated of our location, and cloud cover also limits it.
there is another sight that utilizes realtime military satellite data for its current forecast modeling and a couple of bouys that measured for chlorophyll, but the hilo one was lost in 2017. its' sensor may have been a fluorometer .
http://www.pacioos.hawaii.edu/currents/model-hawaii/
predicting the next days currents allows me to also predict the areas of greatest upwellings and, yup, plankton production through bathymetric/satellite charts. it helps, cause couple years ago diesel was $5/gallon.
as far as the data compilation from the past goes, i am unaware of where it can be accessed and not sure if 15 or even 50 years would be enough to draw real conclusions though we would certainly be able to show trends in the data if any are there.

Ok, we are on the same page. I also used every tool, including bath charts and bouy data.

I have a hard time considering the article in the OP as credible, for a couple of reasons.

First, it only uses 3 years of data to project future conditions. Like you said, 50 years would not be enough.

Next it uses models being taught in Universitys that support an agenda. I have not found even one of these models to project even close to the actual results, let alone being on target.

Let me give you an idea on how some of these models are used.

Once a week, for 4 hours, a marine biology student is sent to count the number of fishing boats, both commercial and sport, leaving the bay for the ocean.

From this boat count a model is used to project how many fish of each species were caught, for the entire week.

These numbers are then applied towards available fish quotas. Different models are than used to guess the impact on fish populations.

The fish population is determined by another model. Once a year, they use the one day catch, from one boat, fishing in one or maybe a couple of small areas. From this small sample, they project the fish populations for a very large area.

Models = voodoo science.

 

[Hoopguru]

Ok, we are on the same page. I also used every tool, including bath charts and bouy data.

I have a hard time considering the article in the OP as credible, for a couple of reasons.

First, it only uses 3 years of data to project future conditions. Like you said, 50 years would not be enough.

Next it uses models being taught in Universitys that support an agenda. I have not found even one of these models to project even close to the actual results, let alone being on target.

Let me give you an idea on how some of these models are used.

Once a week, for 4 hours, a marine biology student is sent to count the number of fishing boats, both commercial and sport, leaving the bay for the ocean.

From this boat count a model is used to project how many fish of each species were caught, for the entire week.

These numbers are then applied towards available fish quotas. Different models are than used to guess the impact on fish populations.

The fish population is determined by another model. Once a year, they use the one day catch, from one boat, fishing in one or maybe a couple of small areas. From this small sample, they project the fish populations for a very large area.

Models = voodoo science.

very interesting!

 

[lawai'a]

Ok, we are on the same page. I also used every tool, including bath charts and bouy data.

I have a hard time considering the article in the OP as credible, for a couple of reasons.

First, it only uses 3 years of data to project future conditions. Like you said, 50 years would not be enough.

Next it uses models being taught in Universitys that support an agenda. I have not found even one of these models to project even close to the actual results, let alone being on target.

Let me give you an idea on how some of these models are used.

Once a week, for 4 hours, a marine biology student is sent to count the number of fishing boats, both commercial and sport, leaving the bay for the ocean.

From this boat count a model is used to project how many fish of each species were caught, for the entire week.

These numbers are then applied towards available fish quotas. Different models are than used to guess the impact on fish populations.

The fish population is determined by another model. Once a year, they use the one day catch, from one boat, fishing in one or maybe a couple of small areas. From this small sample, they project the fish populations for a very large area.

Models = voodoo science.

not sure which fisheries those were for, but all models are potentially flawed, with out pulling the plug and counting the carcasses to see if they were correct.
i personally don' know of the agenda's unless through funding their studies are meant to represent an opinion of the grantor. the pollock , hake, and cod fisheries i prosecuted as a harvestor vessel were dependant on biomass estimates, year class recruitment survival, catch sampleing, etc. etc. and we had federal observers onboard 1/3 of our days at sea. at the time because of the currency exchange rates, most of the observers that had the requisite schooling came from canada. there was certainly biased opinions involved but they had to show what they sampled and their results and we could document any problems with methodology we observed.
some observers were more conscientious about their jobs than others, so even in fisheries that were that highly monitored data was occasionally skewed. i assume that some sort of bell curve was used to throw out the data of multiple vessels fishing within 1/2 mile of one another that were way outside after averaging. any way this is how those fisheries were monitored and managed.
acoustical surveys were a large part of biomass and year class estimates for annual quotas after applying the total allowable catch as a percentage of said biomass. these estimates were available for review and had to be defended at fisheries council meetings. the process was far more transparent then the model you suggested(treaties were involved also between us and russia because the damn fish never knew where that line was, and we weren't allowed to cross over to gett'em). i hope that it never negatively impacted you from making your living.
i would be happy to take the side of false premises about when the stellar sealion was introduced as an endangered species closing fishing areas, because of candlfish stocks that we didn't impact.LOL
note how i threw in for free the reference to foreign workers willing to work for less.

 

[Lanny]

Ok, we are on the same page. I also used every tool, including bath charts and bouy data.

I have a hard time considering the article in the OP as credible, for a couple of reasons.

First, it only uses 3 years of data to project future conditions. Like you said, 50 years would not be enough.

Next it uses models being taught in Universitys that support an agenda. I have not found even one of these models to project even close to the actual results, let alone being on target.

Let me give you an idea on how some of these models are used.

Once a week, for 4 hours, a marine biology student is sent to count the number of fishing boats, both commercial and sport, leaving the bay for the ocean.

From this boat count a model is used to project how many fish of each species were caught, for the entire week.

These numbers are then applied towards available fish quotas. Different models are than used to guess the impact on fish populations.

The fish population is determined by another model. Once a year, they use the one day catch, from one boat, fishing in one or maybe a couple of small areas. From this small sample, they project the fish populations for a very large area.

Models = voodoo science.

We don't have 50 years to wait for an answer to the disappearance of plankton which are disappearing at a rate of about 1% annually.