SCI/TECH: The Pacific's Catastrophic Collapse of Sea and Bird Life

A weakness in westerly winds off the West Coast of the United States, that normally push warm waters out to sea and enable cooler nutrient rich waters to percolate from below, has led to a 75 percent decrease in phytoplankton populations. That decline has reverberated throughout the pacific food chain, causing one of the largest starvation events for fish and seabirds in more than half a century.



It is possible we have passed the point of no return. Everywhere we look, there appears to be a series of cascading events leading to the decimation of ecosystems across the planet. Any discussion concerning the initial causation seems less relevant now. We need to look at is how man's activities are either accelerating or amplifying these changes. We can't ignore these problems forever.

Related News Links:
www.helenair.com
www.sanluisobispo.com
www.newportnewstimes.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Catastrophe in the Pacific

[edit on 13-11-2005 by loam]

It is possible we have passed the point of no return. Everywhere we look, there appears to be a series of cascading events leading to the decimation of ecosystems across the planet.

Everywhere we look, there appears to be a series of cascading events that we've never seen or recorded before due to the lack of technology. The increase in technological monitoring, gps, and satelittes have fueled this "end of the world" craze.

Theres nothing more happening on the earth that hasnt happened a million times before. Only this time, the civilation that currently occupies the earth has the technology to monitor it and possibly foresee it.

I don't buy into the "man made" global warming. What caused all the other global warming/winters before we came?

The overwhelming evidence indicates that many of these changes began to occur around the beginning of the Industrial Age. While the planet's climate has changed many times in its history, our activities appear to be accelerating those changes.

There is far more science to support that position than there is that contradicts it.

The evidence is indeed mounting that this particular stage of Global warming is man made and yes it did increase at the beginning of the industrial age.

Recycling was not a word invented at the time and it is only after the damage has been done that people started thinking of reducing emssions, and recycling and replanting.

Good Find

as posted by Mayet
Recycling was not a word invented at the time and it is only after the damage has been done that people started thinking of reducing emssions, and recycling and replanting.

Got an exact time period for the above mention, Mayet?
If one researched recycling and the history of it thereof, in its various forms, one will find that recycling was pre-industrial, before the industrial revolution.
Recycling Timeline
History of waste and recycling information sheet

Perchance, could you or anyone else please explain the global warming that has been occurring on Mars? Does it have anything to do with Martians and greenhouse gases? Does psuedo-science come into this at any point? Was global warming an issue in 1789 or round abouts? How about during the time of William the Conqueror? Maybe 55 million years ago? How does the increased solar-activity fit into these equations for the global warming hype? Sure we are not experiencing global cooling?

Thanks.




seekerof

[edit on 13-11-2005 by Seekerof]

Perchance, could you or anyone else please explain the global warming that has been occurring on Mars? Does it have anything to do with Martians and greenhouse gases?

This is such a specious argument...the equivalent of asserting that death by pneumonia is proof that death by a weapon can not possibly happen. What kind of logic is that?

Planetary climate change can and does occur naturally. But the issue here is that much of the scientific evidence points to the present day change as suspiciously coinciding with the increased use by man of fossil fuels. Moreover, even if the change is coincidentally caused by natural causes, the question remains whether man's activities have accelerated or amplified those changes.

One can sit in an air tight bubble and choose to exhaust the remaining oxygen by flailing one's arms about in denial, or one can simply remain calm and buy additional time to figure a way out of the dilemma. The choice seems an obvious one to me.

Perhaps it is a tenuous argument, loam, but I believe that the global-warming argument is equally tenuous. I don't know if it's right or wrong, but I will say this... I am skeptical.

Also, loam, you make a good point about the correlation between fossil fuels and "present day change," except I am not sure to what change you are referring. Are you talking about the change in the western winds? If so, how do we know they don't weaken every, say, 300 years?

I'd be just as interested (and hopefully you would too) on the correlation between our detection of "anomalous" weather/global phenomena and our increasing ability to detect such phenomena. I think what seekerof is trying to point out, is that prior to our ability to detect such occurrences, they could possibly have been happening—we just didn't know about it. And, to deny that, to use your type of example, is like arguing that because we couldn't see bacteria during the 14th century, the Black Death had to be caused by imbalances of the four humours.

The Four Humours

as posted by Hamburglar
I think what seekerof is trying to point out, is that prior to our ability to detect such occurrences, they could possibly have been happening—we just didn't know about it. And, to deny that, to use your type of example, is like arguing that because we couldn't see bacteria during the 14th century, the Black Death had to be caused by imbalances of the four humours.

Thank you.
That was exactly the point I was making, Hamburglar.




seekerof

[edit on 13-11-2005 by Seekerof]

originally posted by loam
The overwhelming evidence indicates that many of these changes began to occur around the beginning of the Industrial Age. While the planet's climate has changed many times in its history, our activities appear to be accelerating those changes.

There is far more science to support that position than there is that contradicts it.

well, of course there is. know why? because the start of the industrial revolution roughly coincides with the time period that we started, as a world community, to keep an accurate record of the climate. before, it was just bits and pieces here and there.

as we have no accurate record dating back more than a couple of centuries how can we say that global warming is scientifically proven to be our fault and not a normal climate cycle?

every single analysis i have ever seen is based on incomplete data.

now, i'm not saying that we shouldnt continue to look for ways to lessen our impact on the environment. i'm just saying that we are basing all of our decisions about the world climate on a mere two hundred years worth of knowledge, out of millions upon millions of years worth of weather changes. kind of ridiculous.

oh, and one more thing....while i'm still on my soapbox:

the ozone hole over antarctica. it was discovered in 1985. we have been monitoring ozone in the atmosphere for only 40 years. SO HOW IN THE HELL CAN WE SAY THAT IT ISNT PERFECTLY NORMAL BASED ON ONLY 40 YEARS WORTH OF DATA?!?!?!?

just curious.

[edit on 13-11-2005 by snafu7700]

Hamburglar

Also, loam, you make a good point about the correlation between fossil fuels and "present day change," except I am not sure to what change you are referring. Are you talking about the change in the western winds? If so, how do we know they don't weaken every, say, 300 years?

No, I was not specifically referring to the issue of the western winds, but rather generally to planetary climate change. In terms of whether such local changes may simply represent some natural cycle, I agree as to the possibility. However, these changes, coupled with other dramatic changes, such as the melting of the polar ice cap, the thinning of the ozone layer, the melting of glaciers, the weakening of the the Gulf Stream, the change in the North Sea, tropical cyclones hitting the Iberian Peninsula and the Brazilian coast, and a list that can continue for another half a page, I tend to become less skeptical.

The problem with discounting any of these examples in isolation is that you might miss something far more important in the aggregate. Much of the theoretical science appears reasonable, even if somewhat difficult to prove.

I do not like the notion that our usage and reliance upon petrochemicals is somehow not worth reconsidering. There are many other reasons from a socio/political/economic perspective that in my view already justifies sufficient grounds for a change.

With regard to the "detection" issue, there is already ample geological evidence via ice and sediment core sampling to help us understand more concerning the frequency, duration and speed of historical planetary climate changes.

It's not like the science is based upon the scribblings of a few monks cloistered upon some hill 400 years ago.



[edit on 14-11-2005 by loam]

I have a serious question here.. hopefully one of you that are more indepth in this story/phenomenon can explain this to me..

I keep reading about these massive changes in the Earth's ecosystem. Back when I was going to school (about 10-15 years ago) I was taught how the ecosystem supports us.. so I understand just how delicate the whole system is..

I don't fully understand this 'bulge' just yet, but I plan on reading more into it to get the real scoop.. but amongst other things ..

Is this all being hyped or is there a very serious problem here?

I mean, politicians have been starting to dip their hands into this subject after years and years of people "crying wolf" as they were called. But all along, it seems they were right, there is a major change happening and we have to prepare..

But with politics comes spin, motives, and heresay. So I really don't know who to beleive anymore.. is there a problem here, or is it just a new "abortion" type stance?

And if it is true, that we're all gonna go through the rides of our lives, when do these major 'changes' accumulate to something we're all going to have to fear (super storms, or whatever the doomsday scenario is/was)?

I'd really like to know if this subject is something I should be investigating more seriously.. I just came acrossed a load of cash and I'm planning on sending myself to a top-tier university instead of living off the inheritance (which I could very comfortably) and if this subject is real, and not spun/manipulated then I may consider this field my major.

QuietSoul
Is this all being hyped or is there a very serious problem here?

In my view, it may be both... the former affecting acceptance of the legitimacy of arguments for the latter.

QuietSoul
So I really don't know who to beleive anymore..

On occasion, I share your problem. But in this case, I'm inclined to think there really is a there, there.

QuietSoul
And if it is true, that we're all gonna go through the rides of our lives, when do these major 'changes' accumulate to something we're all going to have to fear (super storms, or whatever the doomsday scenario is/was)?

No one really knows yet, and the biggest fear is that when we do, it might be too late to do anything about it.

QuietSoul
I'd really like to know if this subject is something I should be investigating more seriously..

My answer is simply..... YES!


[edit on 14-11-2005 by loam]

I think we're at the point where it doesn't matter anymore if it's a manmade or natural climate change. It's undeniable that it's happening and it's happening in our lifetimes.

The only difference is that humans were able to migrate to more stable environments in the past, now there's no part of the world unpopulated and we may end up fighting wars for arable land.

I do agree to some level we dont have enough data and there is a chanse everything is just a cycle.

But ecosystem and climate system was forming for 4.5 bilion of years. And we are seriusly messing with this planet for about 200 years. So i think it is a safe bet that we say nature didnt predict us in their quilibrium.

When ever planet quilibrium is broken nature compensates and more it has to do it... the biger are changes.

I hope people in power will stop with ignorance because this is a serius issue. We all have only one home and it is called earth.

As loam said:

Any discussion concerning the initial causation seems less relevant now. ...We can't ignore these problems forever.

IMO - the focus on cause is a red herring now. The point is that the earth's climate is changing, and we need to prepare.

These questions are far more important now:

What is being done to prepare for radical, and likely very rapid climate change?

Who is taking responsibility for the preparations?

How will we survive, as a species, and as nations?

Where will we live?

Why are we not focusing on the real issues?

Who is propagating the red herrings? What do they have to gain by distracting our attention?

When will we get on track? Before or after it's too late to do anything constructive?


.

Soficrow....

Precisely! All of those questions are certainly the most relevant now. They may sound like difficult questions to ask, and even more difficult to answer, but our failure to recognize the elephant standing in the middle of the room will only diminish the number of our options we have available to us moving forward.

Of all of the issues confronting us, in my lifetime, I can think of none other that are more important than this one. If we ultimately fail to secure a livable environment for ourselves, and our children, then everything else becomes moot.

Should we become hysterical about it? No. But we should become smarter about it, and finally dispense with the petty arguments as to whether or not change is in fact occurring.


[edit on 14-11-2005 by loam]

Originally posted by loam
...we should become smarter about it, and finally dispense with the petty arguments as to whether or not change is in fact occurring.

There can be no question any longer of whether change is indeed occuring or not. It is and of that there can be no debate. The examples of climate change are everywhere to see and I doubt anyone can say they are not affected wherever they may be living in the world today. Science journals are chock-a-block with statistics and even websites such as Scientific American (sciam), space.com and NASA are places to look for information on the developing global warming trends.

The sad reality for many is that they are caught up in the side issue of what has caused this warming. As you and Soficrow say, this is no longer the important issue. The relevant issues now are what to do about the re-location of coastal cities which are threatened by rising sea levels, how to better evacuate large populations in the paths of severe weather and how to manipulate farming practices geographically as drought takes over areas once the breadbaskets of the world.

Originally posted by masqua

The relevant issues now are what to do about the re-location of coastal cities which are threatened by rising sea levels, how to better evacuate large populations in the paths of severe weather and how to manipulate farming practices geographically as drought takes over areas once the breadbaskets of the world.

Nice summary Masqua.

I'd add new energy sources - we are facing an ice age, and who knows what regions will be affected. So we need local energy and food sources that will bridge the gaps created by cold, not just drought.

Soficrow, I'll second the alternative energy push notion.

Also, I think you raise another interesting point. The term "Global Warming" is in itself is too myopic, and describes a brief point in time in a long chain of cascading events... A better one would be "Planetary Climate Change," or something to that effect.

Hummmm....
I have huge blisters that seem to ooze something all over my body...
they popped up about the same time a chemical plant nearby vented its acidic steam...

but it looks like a sunburn, and i have had sunburns before...
so it must be a sunburn...'

all that acidic steam couldn't possibly be the cause...

Do ya se the point of trying to look at history... and negate or prove global warming...

just look at the science... ie. discharging acidic steam would be the most likely cause for local residents blistering, but not the only reason...
the only thing we can say for certain, is that the acidic steam, is causing harm, so stop it...

In this case, IMO that it is not only global warming (maybe a slight influence) that is causing all the problems... but ocean pollution that is also causing these dieoffs...
there will be less phytoplanton to breed if there are less that survive radioactive or chemical dumping... then throw in weather factors that further lessen the breeding... and you have a distinct dieoff...

BTW... when the phytoplankton die off, we all die off... (they provide the vast majority of oxygen for us to breathe)
just thought you needed to see the connection...

Since there seems to be a much lessened influx of oxygen this year, I am asking for oxygen tanks for christmas...