Mass Plankton Die-Off

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by osirissail

That's easy - get a cruising yacht and get away from 1st world countries. Somehow, I had a feeling that the CF forum was about just that.

That is exactly our plan and I'm working it. Not there yet, but got it in the Chart Plotter. It's up for Admiralty Review.

[hpeer]

One way to view attitudes would be to break them into a matrix, in simplified terms:
Threat to humanity on the vertical scale 0=no threat 10=annihilate all life.
Human culpability on the horizontal scale 0=no blame 10=yup we did it.

Few of us would be either 0/0 or 10/10. But it is possible for two people to be a 0/10 and a 10/10. They would agree that Earth will become uninhabitable, but would not agree on the cause.

I think most of us see that threat as somewhere between 3 and 7, we can see something changing, we aren't sure how drastic it will be. To some degree it does not matter whether you see the cause as natural or man made. The question becomes, "Is there something we should/can do about it."

So to complicate things we could make another scale weighing humanities collective ability to change course, our ability to effect positive change:
Effectiveness 0=we are total masters of our universe 10= can't tie shoes

This is important because what matters is what we can DO about something, can we make changes?

For myself, and without elaborating on how I got here, my scores would look like this:

Threat = 7
Culpability = 7
Effectiveness = 9

Obviously I am pessimistic about the future. And, more to the point, I don't think humanity has much ability to control its actions - collectively. I see humanity itself as a natural event, something like a swarm of locusts, or algae bloom.

On an individual basis there may be a great deal one can do to improve your personal lot and that of your genetic line, if you are so inclined.

Originally Posted by osirissail
That's easy - get a cruising yacht and get away from 1st world countries. Somehow, I had a feeling that the CF forum was about just that.

[mintyspilot]

OK - it's DAFT QUESTION TIME......

If warming the globe less than 1* C over the last 200 years has caused a 40% decrease in plankton.... how did the plankton survive in historic times when the Earth was 5* C warmer?

If 1* = 40% decrease (ie 60% remain) then 5 degrees = (0.6^5) = 8% remaining. I grant that this is very simplistic but you get the point - a huge decrease should imply next to no plankton => next to no oxygen => dead planet so we should not be here, but we are here, so......

Just thought I would ask.

---- Moderator easy delete marker - snip below this line ----

(BTW - about the california politicians who are going to outlaw cows f*rting - how will they do this? I know politicians often have their heads up their own a** but a variation on that seems rather drastic. And cruel to the cow.)

[mintyspilot]

Originally Posted by hpeer

It's up for Admiralty Review.

Just had the admirality review and its

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...tml#post521763

[osirissail]

- - As to cattle methane from the US EPA: EPA - Ruminant Livestock - Frequent Questions
1. How much methane is produced by livestock?

Globally, ruminant livestock produce about 80 million metric tons of methane annually, accounting for about 28% of global methane emissions from human-related activities. An adult cow may be a very small source by itself, emitting only 80-110 kgs of methane, but with about 100 million cattle in the U.S. and 1.2 billion large ruminants in the world, ruminants are one of the largest methane sources. In the U.S., cattle emit about 5.5 million metric tons of methane per year into the atmosphere, accounting for 20% of U.S. methane emissions.
For a specific break-down of US methane sources, from livestock to other sources visit the Methane Sources & Emissions Web page.

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

A gentle reminder that this is about climate and not politics.

That's kinda like discussing God(s) (and Goddesses ) without mentioning religion(s) or the religionistas

Climate change? The singers may change over the years but whether delivered by Princes, Popes or Politicians (and their accolytes ) the song is always the same: "Ain't enough to go around..........for you Peasants".

Of course the "bogeyman under the bed" to frighten the Peasants has needed to get ever more sophisticated over the Millenia.

Am I am "Climate Denier"? I dunno - but am certainly not a "Climate Creationist"


and FWIW today is nice and sunny here hopefully the start of what is known here as an Indian Summer . but just as likely to piss down with rain for the next fortnight

[dacust]

Originally Posted by mintyspilot

OK - it's DAFT QUESTION TIME......

If warming the globe less than 1* C over the last 200 years has caused a 40% decrease in plankton.... how did the plankton survive in historic times when the Earth was 5* C warmer?

If 1* = 40% decrease (ie 60% remain) then 5 degrees = (0.6^5) = 8% remaining. I grant that this is very simplistic but you get the point - a huge decrease should imply next to no plankton => next to no oxygen => dead planet so we should not be here, but we are here, so......

Just thought I would ask.

Things seldom work in a linear fashion. So, it'd take scientist to speculate on how they would react to drastic changes.

Also, much of the world's oxygen comes from trees and plants.

Originally Posted by mintyspilot

---- Moderator easy delete marker - snip below this line ----

(BTW - about the california politicians who are going to outlaw cows f*rting - how will they do this? I know politicians often have their heads up their own a** but a variation on that seems rather drastic. And cruel to the cow.)

They are talking about requiring the use of special feed that would reduce the methane emissions.

-dan

[bobsadler]

it seems the debate is over.

according to the white house's climate czar we shouldn't be saying "global warming" or "climate change" but "climate disruption".

so that's it then.

truely, you couldn't make this stuff up.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...isruption.html

[mintyspilot]

Originally Posted by dacust

Things seldom work in a linear fashion. So, it'd take scientist to speculate on how they would react to drastic changes.

I appreciate that - having a strong science background myself (though mostly in physics and maths). They may not operate in a linear fashion, but there is generally a correlation. The data points that are being bandied round in this discussion are a 1 degree increase in warmth and a 40% decline in phytoplankton. Some people say 75% decline, not 40%

So if you accept the hypothesis, based on these numbers, that a small increase in temperatures causes a large decline in plankton, then it follows that a larger increase in temperature should cause a larger decline in plankton. The problem here is that 40% (or 75%) is already quite a large number leaving little scope for an increase.

The alternative is that something else (not warming) caused the plankton decrease. I'm not suggesting I know what that something else is, but if the model produces questionable results, then the model is questionable.

Originally Posted by dacust

Also, much of the world's oxygen comes from trees and plants.

I've seen that disputed too. It seems to depend on which type of biologist you talk to. Marine or terrestrial.

Originally Posted by dacust

They are talking about requiring the use of special feed that would reduce the methane emissions.

-dan

I prefer my method. It would keep the politicians quiet (or muffled at least)

[dacust]

Originally Posted by mintyspilot

I appreciate that - having a strong science background myself (though mostly in physics and maths). They may not operate in a linear fashion, but there is generally a correlation. The data points that are being bandied round in this discussion are a 1 degree increase in warmth and a 40% decline in phytoplankton. Some people say 75% decline, not 40%

So if you accept the hypothesis, based on these numbers, that a small increase in temperatures causes a large decline in plankton, then it follows that a larger increase in temperature should cause a larger decline in plankton. The problem here is that 40% (or 75%) is already quite a large number leaving little scope for an increase.

The alternative is that something else (not warming) caused the plankton decrease. I'm not suggesting I know what that something else is, but if the model produces questionable results, then the model is questionable.


I've seen that disputed too. It seems to depend on which type of biologist you talk to. Marine or terrestrial.

I have not read much on the plankton issue. But, since research into this is in it's infancy, I'd venture to say that there is much more room for gross errors and flawed theories. On the other hand, I'll guess that if the actual papers were read there would be a lot of "seems to be", "possibly", etc. But, to be honest, when something like this comes out brand new, I seldom try too hard to understand it. I'll wait a few months or maybe a year or two and then see what they got.

So, what I'm saying is your take looks valid to me. But I think it's too early for me, anyway, to get worked up about it.

Originally Posted by mintyspilot

I prefer my method. It would keep the politicians quiet (or muffled at least)

Sorry, I should have acknowledged the pros and cons of your idea. That was rude of me.

-dan

[mintyspilot]

Originally Posted by dacust

.....snip....
I'll guess that if the actual papers were read there would be a lot of "seems to be", "possibly", etc.

Yes - a lot of these papers do contain language like that as the scientists try to give an idea of the solidity (or otherwise) of the data, but the press then ignores this and reports "fact". Happens all the time.

The other thing is that computer models become "fact" as well in spite of most computer models being very, very limited in their scope, applicability and accuracy. It never seems to bother the press that there can be 10 different computer models all predicting different outcomes from each other yet each one "proves" the impending disaster that is approaching.

I don't think that there has ever been a period in history when so MUCH misinformation has been so freely available and so widely publicised. Is plankton down by 40%? 75%? 80%? Who knows....

Originally Posted by dacust

Sorry, I should have acknowledged the pros and cons of your idea. That was rude of me.

-dan

[hummingway]

They'll have to ban me cause there's not much I can't turn into gas when I set my mind to it

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by dacust

I agree with you about the pollution and overuse of resources. And since most scientists say it's those same things that make sense to work on to reduce the "man made global warming", then it makes sense to me to try to do those things and to support the GW research.

-dan

I don't have a problem with research (as long as it can try to remain objective - really hard in todays world)

What I object to is the call for global redistribution of wealth which is what this Kyoto and carbon credit stuff is all about.

I am a giving person but I sort of also think I should be able to keep what I have worked for with my "giving" being voluntary and not forced.

[knothead]

"Cyclone Power Technologies is a research & development company focused on helping solve two of the great problems of our time: our dependence on fossil fuels, and the resulting unsustainable consequences to our environment."

Cyclone Power Technologies - Cyclone Engine


There are alternatives. They need to be explored and developed and hopefully become affordable.
The GW debate is helping to further these technologies. That's a good thing.
Oil is going to become more and more scarce. It's useful for so much more than burning. We would be wise if we made sure that there is plenty for the long term future.

[hummingway]

Originally Posted by knothead

"Cyclone Power Technologies is a research & development company focused on helping solve two of the great problems of our time: our dependence on fossil fuels, and the resulting unsustainable consequences to our environment."

Cyclone Power Technologies - Cyclone Engine


There are alternatives. They need to be explored and developed and hopefully become affordable.
The GW debate is helping to further these technologies. That's a good thing.
Oil is going to become more and more scarce. It's useful for so much more than burning. We would be wise if we made sure that there is plenty for the long term future.

Cell Phones That Never Need To Be Charged? Sound Wave-powered Devices Possible
A Sound Way To Turn Heat Into Electricity
Generating Electricity From Sound Waves! - Science Ahead

Soem scientists in China are hard at work on cell phones that are self charging. I can imagine some of this technology on a boat. If we harnessed all the available energies in a cohesive system maybe then small amounts of energy begin to add up.