Why Warming Oceans Could Mean Dwindling Fish

[editec]

Good thing there is no rapid change. A fraction of a degree in 100 years....and a large portion of that in serious question due to bias input due to poor temperature station location. That hardly constitutes rapid change. The paleo record shows periods of far greater change without the disasterous results warmists fear so much.

If that is the case (I don't actually claim to know, like you do) then no problema.

The paleo record shows periods of far greater change without the disasterous results warmists fear so much.

They do? Show me those records, please.

And while you're at it, show me what those periods of rapid change did to the human society that was counting on a consistent environment at the time.

The earth has undergone many dramatic changes in climate and environment, of course.

Life continued even during those times, too.

But life changed to adapt to those changes and life did that over millions of years not hundreds of years in most cases.

When the environment changes were very rapid, we see evidence of MASSIVE species die-offs.

Some species made it, some not.

 

[Old Rocks]

RAPID change is the problem.

It does not matter what life was like when the oceans were warmer, becasuse the life in the oceans then had time to adjust.

Seriously this concept ought not to confuse anybody.

One has to be purposefully in complete denial not to be able to understand the concept.

Very RAPID changes in any environment have negative impacts on the biospheres effected.

8 degrees in a few thousand years is not RAPID?

And that isn't even the fastest or largest temperature change in the past 15,000 years or so.

Well, there was the Younger Dryas period. Very rapid change into and out of that cold period. And North America lost a great many of it's larger mammals, and also lost the Clovis Culture.

 

[Sallow]

Life in the oceans or on land has not fared well when there was rapid change. Whether the change was toward the cold or toward the hot.

The temperature has risen a full 8 degrees over the past 10,000 years yet sea life abounds.

Fact

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Try an experiment, CF. Change the temperature 8 degrees in a bowl with fish in it.

You'd be amazed how fast they croak.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Life in the oceans or on land has not fared well when there was rapid change. Whether the change was toward the cold or toward the hot.

The temperature has risen a full 8 degrees over the past 10,000 years yet sea life abounds.

Fact

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Try an experiment, CF. Change the temperature 8 degrees in a bowl with fish in it.

You'd be amazed how fast they croak.

Over a few thousand years???

I'm pretty sure I don't live that long

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Mr Natural]

I was an active recreational diver from the late '70's up until recently, taking maybe one or two dive trips per year.

I can tell you first hand that there are a lot fewer fish now than there were 40 years ago.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Or they could mean more fish...like you said...black box. Interesting that you choose the gloom and doom cup half empty senario....based on what? Were the oceans nearly devoid of life during geological times when the earth was much warmer than the present?....To the best of my knowledge, the paleo record shows oceans literally blooming with life during warm periods.

So your position is that species of fish which have been extinct for 5,000 years will now spring back to life?

Interesting.

I think a more logical assumption is that any significant change in temperature or pH will mean many hundreds of species become extnict. Others may increase their numbers, of course, but that may also take rather a long time as they may need to 'migrate' to find areas which suit their comfort range.

It's also worth remembering that industrial fishing was not a major factor during the last ice age - any scenario in which fish are threatened with extinction is also going to be made worse by the needs of fishermen to catch what there is.

This makes a lot of sense. Good post.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Life in the oceans or on land has not fared well when there was rapid change. Whether the change was toward the cold or toward the hot.

The temperature has risen a full 8 degrees over the past 10,000 years yet sea life abounds.

Fact

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

It warmed 8c from 15k to 5k years ago. When has it fallen? 115-100k years ago I think is what you're talking about.

 

[ScienceRocks]

RAPID change is the problem.

It does not matter what life was like when the oceans were warmer, becasuse the life in the oceans then had time to adjust.

Seriously this concept ought not to confuse anybody.

One has to be purposefully in complete denial not to be able to understand the concept.

Very RAPID changes in any environment have negative impacts on the biospheres effected.

8 degrees in a few thousand years is not RAPID?

Coming out of the big glaciations. Yep.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Good thing there is no rapid change. A fraction of a degree in 100 years....and a large portion of that in serious question due to bias input due to poor temperature station location. That hardly constitutes rapid change. The paleo record shows periods of far greater change without the disasterous results warmists fear so much.

No rapid change. Apparently you haven't a clue as to what constitutes a rapid change. When we should be in a slow cooling, we are in a rapid warming. The area of the summer ice in the Arctic has shrank by almost half in the last thirty years. Most of that in the last decade.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

We should be in a cooling? Based on what, the Farmers Almanac?

 

[ScienceRocks]

RAPID change is the problem.

It does not matter what life was like when the oceans were warmer, becasuse the life in the oceans then had time to adjust.

Seriously this concept ought not to confuse anybody.

One has to be purposefully in complete denial not to be able to understand the concept.

Very RAPID changes in any environment have negative impacts on the biospheres effected.

8 degrees in a few thousand years is not RAPID?

And that isn't even the fastest or largest temperature change in the past 15,000 years or so.

Younger dyes?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Good thing there is no rapid change. A fraction of a degree in 100 years....and a large portion of that in serious question due to bias input due to poor temperature station location. That hardly constitutes rapid change. The paleo record shows periods of far greater change without the disasterous results warmists fear so much.

No rapid change. Apparently you haven't a clue as to what constitutes a rapid change. When we should be in a slow cooling, we are in a rapid warming. The area of the summer ice in the Arctic has shrank by almost half in the last thirty years. Most of that in the last decade.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

We should be in a cooling? Based on what, the Farmers Almanac?

1. Solar flex is down slightly since the 1950's
2. cold enso string of nina's
3. The weakest solar min and max since the 1910s

 

[Old Rocks]

8 degrees in a few thousand years is not RAPID?

And that isn't even the fastest or largest temperature change in the past 15,000 years or so.

Younger dyes?

Younger Dryas;

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Perspective on Abrupt climate Change

 

[mamooth]

We should be in a cooling? Based on what, the Farmers Almanac?

Milankovitch cycles.

The normal pattern is that an ice age ends with a rapid warmup, and then there's a slow cooldown into the next ice age. The rapid warmup ended 6000 years ago. If it was just up to "natural cycles", we'd be in a slow cooldown for the next 23000 years or so.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So the Sun is now a digital heat source exactly on schedule over a 26,000 yr cycle

"This new learning amazes me, Brother Maynard!"

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Saigon]

Frank -

Firstly, no one cares that you have a cheap Korean phone, so kindly stop telling us.

Secondly, do you not think that in his bed to start civil war, Obama might have poisoned the sun?