Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Community Forums
 General Discussion
 This does not bode well.
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 07/29/2010 :  14:50:49  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
So global warming is a myth, huh?
Caroline Alphonso, Toronto

From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published on Wednesday, Jul. 28, 2010 1:04PM EDT

Last updated on Wednesday, Jul. 28, 2010 10:36PM EDT


.Microscopic phytoplankton that form the foundation of the marine food chain are declining, according to a new Canadian study that indicates that the ocean’s ecosystem and fisheries could be changing.

Researchers at Dalhousie University conducted the first global study of the populations of these microscopic organisms in the past century and found the declines – averaging about 1 per cent a year, and approximately 40 per cent since 1950 – are correlated with increases in sea surface temperatures. The study, a three-year analysis, is being published Thursday in the journal Nature.

“What we’re looking at is the planet changing, and I think it’s always hard to figure out a cause and effect of that, and what those implications are,” said Curtis Suttle, a professor of earth and ocean sciences at the University of British Columbia. “Undoubtedly, that does have implications in terms of how oceanic food webs are structured, and that could have impacts on fisheries.”

Phytoplankton act as the grass of the ocean and form the base of the aquatic food chain. The organisms live at the surface of the water, and are the main source of food for zooplankton, which in turn form the diet of fish and other sea creatures that are eaten by the bigger fish, large whales and humans that occupy the top of the food chain.

Phytoplankton are also major sources of oxygen to the atmosphere.

As the Phytoplankton goes, so go we. Little things mean a lot, eh?




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!


Edited by - filthy on 07/30/2010 02:08:26

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 07/29/2010 :  19:54:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
That research, all by itself, comes very close to being "smoking gun" evidence for AGW. Scary stuff.

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

Ebone4rock
SFN Regular

USA
894 Posts

Posted - 07/30/2010 :  05:20:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Ebone4rock a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Researchers at Dalhousie University conducted the first global study of the populations of these microscopic organisms in the past century and found the declines – averaging about 1 per cent a year, and approximately 40 per cent since 1950 – are correlated with increases in sea surface temperatures. The study, a three-year analysis, is being published Thursday in the journal Nature.

bolding mine

Seeing as I ride the fence as far as global warming is concerned I have questions when I read reports like these.

So..the first study in the past century......then being able to determine that populations have dropped 40% since 1950......and the study lasted only 3 years?

Where did their base numbers come from to determine this huge drop? How is it possible to come to this conclusion?

I'm calling bullshit on this one.

Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 07/30/2010 :  05:54:44   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Ebone4rock

Researchers at Dalhousie University conducted the first global study of the populations of these microscopic organisms in the past century and found the declines – averaging about 1 per cent a year, and approximately 40 per cent since 1950 – are correlated with increases in sea surface temperatures. The study, a three-year analysis, is being published Thursday in the journal Nature.

bolding mine

Seeing as I ride the fence as far as global warming is concerned I have questions when I read reports like these.

So..the first study in the past century......then being able to determine that populations have dropped 40% since 1950......and the study lasted only 3 years?

Where did their base numbers come from to determine this huge drop? How is it possible to come to this conclusion?

I'm calling bullshit on this one.
Let us not use the B-word too quickly. From the Journal of Nature:
In the oceans, ubiquitous microscopic phototrophs (phytoplankton) account for approximately half the production of organic matter on Earth. Analyses of satellite-derived phytoplankton concentration (available since 1979) have suggested decadal-scale fluctuations linked to climate forcing, but the length of this record is insufficient to resolve longer-term trends. Here we combine available ocean transparency measurements and in situ chlorophyll observations to estimate the time dependence of phytoplankton biomass at local, regional and global scales since 1899. We observe declines in eight out of ten ocean regions, and estimate a global rate of decline of ~1% of the global median per year. Our analyses further reveal interannual to decadal phytoplankton fluctuations superimposed on long-term trends. These fluctuations are strongly correlated with basin-scale climate indices, whereas long-term declining trends are related to increasing sea surface temperatures. We conclude that global phytoplankton concentration has declined over the past century; this decline will need to be considered in future studies of marine ecosystems, geochemical cycling, ocean circulation and fisheries.

And:
The scientists involved used so-called Secchi disks in order to accumulate their data. Secchi disks were named after the scientist Pietro Angelo Secchi who in the 1800s developed the disks. The disks are able to determine the levels of plankton by determining the clarity of the water. Generally, plankton studies in the past have been performed through satellite imagery.

Phytoplankton data dates back to 1899. When compared to this data, the scientists found that plankton began significantly decreasing in the 1950s. Now, in less than 60 years, the level of plankton in the world’s oceans has declined by forty percent. The only ocean currently not exhibiting major declines is the Indian Ocean, which has remained steady. However, major declines have been found in the Arctic and the equatorial areas of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.



Phytoplankton bloom





"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Ebone4rock
SFN Regular

USA
894 Posts

Posted - 07/30/2010 :  06:33:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Ebone4rock a Private Message  Reply with Quote
satellite-derived phytoplankton concentration (available since 1979) have suggested decadal-scale fluctuations linked to climate forcing, but the length of this record is insufficient to resolve longer-term trends. Here we combine available ocean transparency measurements and in situ chlorophyll observations to estimate the time dependence of phytoplankton biomass at local, regional and global scales since 1899.


Exactly how do they come to the conclusion that the decline is linked to "climate forcing"? (thats a new phrase to me) I'm just not trusting this. It requires way too much FAITH.

It's reports like these from both sides of the issue that make me not trust a damn one of them. They all seemed skewed toward the ideology of the people doing the reporting. That is why I take matters into my own hands and actually physically do something about climate change. Every spring a group of us plant trees on some conservation land that my family owns. In the past ten years we have planted approximately 30,000 trees. At least that way I know that I am helping...and if I'm not at least the land is getting reforested. It's a win-win situation.

Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 07/30/2010 :  07:02:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
FAITH has nothing to do with the science. It is the evidence only that counts. Thus far, virtually all of that evidence is in favor of gradually, or not-so-gradually, geologically speaking, rising, global temperatures. Give me some reliable evidence to the contrary, and I'll give all due consideration.

Oh, and I think the peer-reviewed Journal Nature is a pretty reliable, scientific publication.




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Ebone4rock
SFN Regular

USA
894 Posts

Posted - 07/30/2010 :  07:16:57   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Ebone4rock a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by filthy

FAITH has nothing to do with the science. It is the evidence only that counts. Thus far, virtually all of that evidence is in favor of gradually, or not-so-gradually, geologically speaking, rising, global temperatures. Give me some reliable evidence to the contrary, and I'll give all due consideration.

Oh, and I think the peer-reviewed Journal Nature is a pretty reliable, scientific publication.






I dunno Filthy, The way I see it is that it requires faith to conclude
satellite-derived phytoplankton concentration (available since 1979) have suggested decadal-scale fluctuations linked to climate forcing
based on
but the length of this record is insufficient to resolve longer-term trends
.

It seems that I'm so skeptical that I'm skeptical about skepticism.

Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring
Edited by - Ebone4rock on 07/30/2010 07:17:52
Go to Top of Page

Ebone4rock
SFN Regular

USA
894 Posts

Posted - 07/30/2010 :  07:44:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Ebone4rock a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I am more inclined to follow this train of thought.
www.iceagenow.com/ocean_warming.htm

Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26009 Posts

Posted - 07/30/2010 :  08:06:38   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Ebone4rock

Exactly how do they come to the conclusion that the decline is linked to "climate forcing"? (thats a new phrase to me)
Well, that's part of your problem, then. That's a widely used phrase among climate scientists, so the fact that you don't know it means that you're don't know much of the science. That's not fence-sitting, it's simply ignorance. To then say that AGW conclusions require "way too much FAITH" is nothing more than the arrogance of ignorance: to assert the validity of your conclusions over the science of which you know little. It's like saying, "I don't know any of the math Einstein used, but there's no way that time speeds up or slows down." More simply, "I'm ignorant of the science, but the scientists are wrong."

If you don't want it to look like faith to you, Ebone, then go study the science.
It's reports like these...
Part of the problem is too many people who think they've got enough information to form a concrete conclusion about AGW rely on popular-press reports which summarize (often poorly) the real, detailed science and try to present it to lay people. "Both sides" are not publishing in Nature and other scientific journals, only one side is. Why do you think that is?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Ebone4rock
SFN Regular

USA
894 Posts

Posted - 07/30/2010 :  08:31:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Ebone4rock a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by Ebone4rock

Exactly how do they come to the conclusion that the decline is linked to "climate forcing"? (thats a new phrase to me)
Well, that's part of your problem, then. That's a widely used phrase among climate scientists, so the fact that you don't know it means that you're don't know much of the science. That's not fence-sitting, it's simply ignorance. To then say that AGW conclusions require "way too much FAITH" is nothing more than the arrogance of ignorance: to assert the validity of your conclusions over the science of which you know little. It's like saying, "I don't know any of the math Einstein used, but there's no way that time speeds up or slows down." More simply, "I'm ignorant of the science, but the scientists are wrong."

If you don't want it to look like faith to you, Ebone, then go study the science.
It's reports like these...
Part of the problem is too many people who think they've got enough information to form a concrete conclusion about AGW rely on popular-press reports which summarize (often poorly) the real, detailed science and try to present it to lay people. "Both sides" are not publishing in Nature and other scientific journals, only one side is. Why do you think that is?


Dave, I know I'm not a scientist but I am pretty good at spotting inconsistencies.
"I'm ignorant of the science, but the scientists are wrong."

I'm not claiming that they are wrong, just claiming the article to be BS based on the inconsistencies I have spotted and a leap to conclusions that the article has presented. If the article writers and the scientists involved can articulate their findings without basing the conclusions on incomplete data then I will be more inclined to believe them.
Until that time I will continue the ignorant man's way of combating climate change by doing actual physical labor. That's all I've got. As you pointed out I am ignorant of the science involved...but I've got a strong back.
Part of the problem is too many people who think they've got enough information to form a concrete conclusion about AGW rely on popular-press reports which summarize (often poorly) the real, detailed science and try to present it to lay people.

My problem is the opposite. I do not think that I have enough information. I'm still leaning much more toward volcanic activity as the major cause of ocean warming.....but my mind can be changed.

Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13463 Posts

Posted - 07/30/2010 :  08:49:28   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Ebone4rock:
I'm still leaning much more toward volcanic activity as the major cause of ocean warming...

Why? Please cite the evidence that has caused you to lean in that direction.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Ebone4rock
SFN Regular

USA
894 Posts

Posted - 07/30/2010 :  09:10:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Ebone4rock a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Kil

Ebone4rock:
I'm still leaning much more toward volcanic activity as the major cause of ocean warming...

Why? Please cite the evidence that has caused you to lean in that direction.


Eh, you got me. It was just an idea I had. After going to the source and asking the horse I came across this www.volcano.si.edu/faq/index.cfm?faq=06

So while my theory has been debunked my mind still hasn't changed about what I perceive as an inconsistent and speculatory article. (yet)

Sorry fellas if I roll over too easy when you bust me. I know it must be frustrating.

Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26009 Posts

Posted - 07/30/2010 :  09:19:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Ebone4rock

I'm not claiming that they are wrong...
No, the examples I gave of the arrogance of ignorance are like what you're doing here, not exact duplicates of your behavior.
...just claiming the article to be BS based on the inconsistencies I have spotted and a leap to conclusions that the article has presented. If the article writers and the scientists involved can articulate their findings without basing the conclusions on incomplete data then I will be more inclined to believe them.
Please point out the inconsistencies and incomplete data in the article itself. Give us page numbers. Quote the article.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Ebone4rock
SFN Regular

USA
894 Posts

Posted - 07/30/2010 :  10:31:57   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Ebone4rock a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by Ebone4rock

I'm not claiming that they are wrong...
No, the examples I gave of the arrogance of ignorance are like what you're doing here, not exact duplicates of your behavior.
...just claiming the article to be BS based on the inconsistencies I have spotted and a leap to conclusions that the article has presented. If the article writers and the scientists involved can articulate their findings without basing the conclusions on incomplete data then I will be more inclined to believe them.
Please point out the inconsistencies and incomplete data in the article itself. Give us page numbers. Quote the article.


I would be glad to but I'm too cheap to pay the $32 they want to access the article.

Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring
Go to Top of Page

Ebone4rock
SFN Regular

USA
894 Posts

Posted - 07/30/2010 :  11:06:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Ebone4rock a Private Message  Reply with Quote
BTW Dave, I am pretty confident that I would not be able to find inconsistencies in the article. You would not offer the challenge to me if you were not right.

Both you and Kil have a way of putting me in my place when I'm talking like a sausage without being overly insulting which is why I respect you guys.

Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 07/30/2010 :  11:44:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Ebone4rock



Every spring a group of us plant trees on some conservation land that my family owns. In the past ten years we have planted approximately 30,000 trees.


How many volcanoes do you think that offsets? Just curious.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Edited by - Bill scott on 07/30/2010 12:05:08
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.33 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000