Photo Credit: Alaska Outdoors Supersite
The Gulf of Alaska cod populations appears to have taken a nose-dive. Scientists are shocked at the collapse and starving fish, making this the “worst they’ve ever seen.”
“They [Alaskan cod] get weak and die or get eaten by something else,” said NOAA’s Steve Barbeaux. The 2017 trawl net survey found the lowest numbers of cod on record forcing scientists to try to unravel what happened. A lot of the cod hatched in 2012 appeared to survive, but by 2017, those fish were largely gone for the surveys, which also found scant evidence of fish born in subsequent years. Many of the cod that have come on board trawlers are “long skinny fish” according to Brent Paine, executive director of United Catcher Boats.
“This is a big deal,” Paine said. “We just don’t see these (cod) year classes disappear from one year to the next.” The decline is expected to substantially reduce the gulf cod harvests that in recent years have been worth — before processing — more than $50 million to Northwest and Alaska fishermen who catch them with nets, pot traps, and baited hooks set along the sea bottom.
Barbeaux says the warm water, which has spread to depths of more than 1,000 feet, hit the cod like a kind of a double-whammy. Higher temperatures sped up the rate at which young cod burned calories while reducing the food available for the cod to consume. And many are blaming “climate change” for the effects on the fish, although scientists aren’t directly correlating the two events. “They get weak and die or get eaten by something else,” said Barbeaux, who in October presented preliminary survey findings to scientists and industry officials at an Anchorage meeting of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council.
The 2017 trawl net survey found the lowest numbers of cod on record, more than 70 percent lower than the survey found two years earlier.
Barbeaux said the cod decline likely resulted from the blob, a huge influx of warm Pacific Ocean water that stretched — during its 2015 peak — from the Gulf of Alaska to California’s offshore waters.
Biologists tracked increases in bird die-offs, whale strandings, and other events such as toxic algae blooms. Even today, its effects appear to linger, such as in the dismal survey results for salmon last summer off Washington and Oregon. – The Olympian
The blob began to take hold in 2014, and within a year had raised temperatures as much as 7 degrees Fahrenheit in some surface waters of the Gulf of Alaska. In deeper waters, where cod feed, the temperature rose by more than 1 degree Fahrenheit. The surface temperatures recorded during the blob’s peak could be close to the average at century’s end, according to a recent report on climate change by the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Thus, future blobs could push temperatures much higher than the most recent event.
“They may not necessarily be more frequent, but they will be more intense,” said Nicholas Bond, a University of Washington climate scientist who assisted in the Gulf of Alaska cod research. “This is really going to be uncharted territory.”
It’s Fukushima. All of that radiation flowed up the Aleutians then down the coast of Alaska then B.C next it will reach and destroy California and Mexico. It accumulates in the larger fish and wipes out species. Rense regularly speaks about it or has first hand accounts from a Canadian who has spent his life on the ocean. He is threatened with being silenced and incarcerated in canada. http://www.rense.com/datapages/japanquakedat.htm
They will just call it friggin climate change.
I checked on this issue with Dr. Jane Orient, MD, head of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness (good site BTW, for those of you interested), as I eat a lot of fish (salmon, cod, etc.) from the Pacific. She did not think the Fukishima leak was something to be worried about, relative to fish caught in US waters.
I realize there is a lot of debate on this, so I am just reporting what one person who is trained in the area said (DDP has a focus on nuclear war, and the like), in personal communication to me.
Yes, it is Fukushima. They have already done studies in 2015 that proved there are extremely high radiation levels in the ocean and it is killing off the fish. Nothing is being said because all the media outlets are controlled, they don’t want mass panic, and it is a way of silently controlling the population while looking as if they didn’t know anything was wrong.
Perhaps Fukashima might be involved?
Exactly what I was thinking –
No mention of “The Fukashima effect”?
No, cant’ be that.
Move along… nothing to see here….
Fukishima with your Cod, sir?
It could be from Fukashima or could be from all the carbon dioxide going into the oceans from burning fossil fuels (climate change). The oceans take in most of the carbon dioxide we emit from industrial activity. Carbon dioxide, once it hits the oceans, turns into carbonic acid– thus, the acidification of the oceans… Its not good for the organisms that live in the ocean! Just the other day, I read that coral reefs, which are the “nursery” for the fish are having an especially difficult time surviving…
The ozone “hole” has expanded (HAARP?) such that previously blocked higher energy UV B and UV C now strike the earth and oceans. Phytoplankton decline has been blamed on the “burn” from the no-longer-blocked UV B and UV C. Even pelagic species like Pacific Yellowfin Tuna have been decimated. Now that the damn “geoengineers” synergies with Fukushima, they have killed the bottom of the food chain, they are “surprised” that higher levels in the food chain are affected.
Auto spell… Grrrrr…. should be “synergize.”
Interestingly, both yellowfin tuna and cod prices at the supermarket have had ZERO change in price.
Interestingly Fukushima on the Pacific, the ocean currents flow from Japan to California and this is just coincidently effecting the US west coast. Carbon dioxide is global. Regardless China is the main culprit. This assumes carbon to atmosphere is something more than an ostensible excuse to facilitate the unregulated transfer of manufacturing from the developed to the developing world. In a world where academia requires funding and TPTB globalist foundations supply that funding its highly probable that the results of any “study” dove tail fit their agenda.
You, Sir Fraud Anonymous, need a basic science lesson.
And don’t miss the next leftist global catastrophe! Since acid rain failed, then the ozone hole, and as you can see, global warming is increasingly being seen as a fraud, next at bat is “ocean acidification,” such as the 2012 stories at http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Climate_to_cost_2_trillion_year_in_damage_to_oceans_study_999.html or http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/03/02/3444215.htm?topic=enviro
Don’t worry…the Al Gore types will milk this for another cool $500 bn before folks realize that as oceans contain 70 times as much C02 as the atmosphere, and “adding the entire atmospheric CO2 content to the oceans would have a scarcely be measurable.
Got that, Anon?? Nah, didn’t think so.
Moreover, if as much as a quarter of the C02 we have emitted since 1750 has gone into the oceans, it has done so in defiance of Henry’s law, which mandates that as oceans warm, they will outgas CO2 to the atmosphere, not the other way around.”
Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer from University of Adelaide noted that “When we run out of rocks on Earth or plate tectonics ceases, then we will have acid oceans,” as most of the C02 is locked up in rocks, and there simply isn’t enough carbon fuels to acidify the ocean. Plimer also notes about ocean acidity that “The oceans are a base with a pH between 7.9 and 8.2. They have remained that way millions of years even when volcanoes greatly increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere many times beyond what it is today without any change in ocean pH. Even the terminology is scientifically incorrect, since the oceans are alkaline; the issue should be “reducing ocean alkalinity,” not increasing acidity.” Matt Ridley, in an article in The Observatory, found at http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/1106-matt-ridley-threat-from-ocean-acidification-greatly-exaggerated.html completely destroys the ocean-acidification-as-a-backup-plan for the Gorian types, and the Belgian Inst. For Space Aeroonomy has reported, via Australia’s Univ. of Wollongong, that nature herself is responsible for 9-) of the earth’s atmospheric acidity. In any event, as Jo Nova points out, a little less acidity might be a good thing (details at http://joannenova.com.au/2011/09/ocean-acidification-a-little-bit-less-alkalinity-could-be-a-good-thing/#more-17080 ), in that alkalinity is harder on living things than acidity (of course, both are corrosive in extremes), which is
why people put lye on “inconvenient bodies,” not acid. And, as Willis Eschenbach notes in WattsUpWithThat, about our slightly alkaline ocean “The increase in CO2 is making the ocean, not more corrosive, but more neutral. Since both alkalinity and acidity corrode things, the truth is that rainwater (or more CO2) will make the ocean slightly less corrosive, by marginally neutralizing its slight alkalinity. That is the problem with the term “acidify”, and it is why I use and insist on the more accurate term “neutralize”. Using “acidify”, is both alarmist and incorrect. The ocean is not getting acidified by additional CO2. It is getting neutralized by additional CO2.” Moreover, oceanic pH becoming more neutral will likely be beneficial to life, which doesn’t like alkalinity in general. In fact, Paul Driessen writes “Marine life thrived when CO2 levels were many times higher during past geologic eras. Far from being or becoming acidic, the oceans are mildly alkaline, and their vast volumes of water will not become acidic from human fossil fuel use: that is, to drop from their current pH of 8.1 into the acidic realm of 7.0 on this logarithmic scale. Oceans may become slightly less alkaline with another century or two of human carbon dioxide emissions, but most marine organisms will be unaffected, while others will adapt or evolve.”
During the massive die-off at the end of the Permian period 252 million years ago – which some attribute to trillions of estimated 24,000 gigatonnes of CO2 released by volcanoes, the fact is that this total far exceeds today’s economically viable fossil fuel reserves in total, and is at the upper end of even unconventional hydrocarbons, such as methane clathrates. Dr. Jane Orient notes in Civil Defense Perspectives (May, 2015) simply concludes “There is not enough carbon in the entire atmosphere or in carbon fuels to acidify the ocean.” Web site with details on this is at http://tinyurl.com/px5qerx.
Wow…..many ideas here. Thank you
The Permian mass extinction occurred over a longer period of time than the current changes to ocean and atmospheric chemistry.
You seem to take issue with the term “acidification” rather than “dealkinization” but the underlying chemistry should be unchanged.
Life as a whole will adapt to new chemical conditions, but the question relevant to us today is how long that will take.
Many key plankton and reef species are sensitive to pH. Are you aware of recent reef bleaching events?
With all due respect, sir Anon, you are either scientifically ignorant or a fraud. Or perhaps both.
But don’t come on here with your Al Gorian fraud AGW and its ugly sister, ocean acidification, scams. Unless you want to continue to embarrass yourself as you just have.
collapseofindustrialization.com “Accelerating Towards an Arctic Blue Water Event”….
(ITS EXTREMELY INTERSTING AND WELL WRITTEN!!)
The availability of readily available abundant energy in multi useful form has put the modern in modern man. Its assets far exceeded its liabilities.
Anonymous. Bullshit. It is NOT interesting; rather, it is propaganda, and you come on this site with your ignorance expecting to dupe people. Unfortunately, consider yourself outed.
Patrick Bedard, wrote, in An Inconvenient Truth: SOS from Al Gore, that the atmosphere is nitrogen (78 percent), oxygen (21 percent), argon (0.93 percent), and CO2 (0.04 percent), with other in trace amounts, and the lower atmosphere with varying amounts of water vapor, up to four percent by volume. Nitrogen and oxygen are neutral with respect to warming. CO2, as ranked by the Kyoto Treaty, is lower on the warming totem pole, but has a higher concentration, so Kyoto said it is responsible for 72 % of global warming. Methane is twenty one times stronger than CO for warming, but as there is not a lot of it around, so Kyoto only says it accounts for 7% of warming. Nitrous oxide (NZO), which primarily comes from Mother Nature, is 310 times more warming than CO2, but is again lower in concentration, and so Kyoto-ites say it accounts for only 19% of warming . In other words, Bedard points out, nature creates about 30 times the global warming gases that man does – and in any event, man only accounts for somewhere around 3% to 3.5% (3.5% according to Fred Singer) of all CO2.
Geologist Dudley J. Hughes adds to this that CO2 is less than a minor player in the drama: “Earth’s atmosphere is made up of several major gases. For simplicity, let’ us picture a football stadium with about 10,000 people in the stands. Assume each person represents a small volume of one type of gas… carbon dioxide (represents) only about 4 parts in 10,000, the smallest volume of any major atmospheric gas.” Another report I am familiar with notes that CO2 only makes up 0.038% of the atmosphere in the first place (0.000383)! Man-made CO2 is only 2.75% of that unfathomably tiny amount, meaning total man-made CO2 makes up about 0.001% of the atmosphere (0.00001).
Accelerating Towards an Arctic Blue Ocean Event | Collapse …
Accelerating Towards an Arctic Blue … • The tipping point for the collapse of Arctic … 127 thoughts on “Accelerating Towards an Arctic Blue Ocean Event …
Science vs. anonymous ignorance – you decide:
What is the actual presence of CO2 in the atmosphere? Just over 400 ppm, or around 0.04%, up from 320 ppm, or 0.032% 50 years ago. Of the remaining percentages, nitrogen amounts for 78%, oxygen 21%. Of the 1% that then remains, 90% of that is argon, with less than 4% of that 1% being carbon dioxide (these percentages exclude highly variable water vapor, which is usually around 1 – 4% of the atmosphere – and a much more major contributor to global warming, estimated at being 50-90% of the greenhouse effect). Of course the logarithmic effect of CO2 means each additional increase has less impact that the prior, same sized increase. Even more, about 96 to 97% of carbon dioxide comes from natural sources, such as animals, plant decay and volcanoes.
In fact, relative to volcanoes, former FDA investigator Dr. Arthur Evangelista, noted that the 2010 eruption of Eyafjallajokull in Iceland emitted, in four days, enough CO2 in four days to negate every single effort mankind made that year to reduce CO2. But this volcano was a piker compared to Mt. Pinatubo, which when it erupted in the Philippines in 1991 “spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire 40 MILLION YEARS on earth.” (of course, the Laki eruption starting in Iceland in 1783 spewed out an An estimated 120,000,000 long tons (120,000,000 t) of sulphur dioxide, about three times the total annual European industrial output in 2006, equivalent to six times the total 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption!) And this doesn’t include that fact that, as he notes the “bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.”
Anonymous is a shill for BIG GREEN MONEY. Consider him officially outed.
Oops!! It was supposed to be:
Anonymous horse manure vs. scientific fact – YOU decide:
Moving back to Al Gore’s famed “forcing mechanism,” Oswald Bergman wrote in the Chemical & Engineering News, Oct. 23, 2006 about the self-limiting nature of global warming, outlining the Stefan-Boltzman law (see also Wien’s law). This law of blackbody radiation says that energy, or E, which is emitted from from a body with a temperature, or T, is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature, or E=oT4 . What does this mean? Since the average in-radiation from the sun at any specific location at the same time of year is pretty much a constant, “any heating due to a greenhouse effect would be expected to reach a self-limiting equilibrium very quickly after only a modest rise in temperature. The reason is that ‘out-radiation’ will overpower the greenhouse effect after a very small temperature rise because of the enormous countervailing effect of the Stefan-Boltzman law.”
I’ll bet you won’t see this fact anywhere, anytime, in the popular media. In a similar vein, Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT notes “studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes down—not up—the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature rise—a dubious proposition—future increases wouldn’t be as steep as the climb in emissions” and cites another fact: he believes clouds and water vapor will counteract greenhouse emissions. Dr. Lindzen discussed this, along with Dr. Spencer and others, at the 4th Annual Global Climate Warming Conference in May, 2010 (details available at http://www.heartland.org)., where they noted climate system has a negative feedback mechanism — a dampening effect on carbon dioxide-caused warming rather and suggest that a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide will produce a warming of no more than 0.5 degrees Celsius, well within natural variation.
An article by well-known weatherman John Coleman at KUSI.com also discusses the forcing, or runaway global warming phenomenon at http://www.kusi.com/story/14072205/global-warming noting “It is true that CO2 can absorb heat a little faster than nitrogen and oxygen but it becomes no hotter because it cannot absorb any more heat than there is available to the other gases. This is against the laws of thermodynamics. All gases share their heat with the other gases. Gas molecules fly around and are constantly colliding with other gas molecules so they immediately lose any excess heat to other molecules during these collisions. That’s why the air is all one temperature in any limited volume.• Even if CO2 levels were many times higher, radiative heating physics shows that it would make virtually no difference to temperature because it has a very limited heating ability. With CO2, the more there is, the less it heats because it quickly becomes saturated. For a detailed explanation go to: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html.” As evidence, the article cites Venus and Mars, that have atmospheres that are almost entirely CO2 (97%), yet have no runaway global warming, as well as noting that in the past the Earth has had CO2 concentrations hundreds of times higher, yet there were ice ages at the same time.
Dr. Fred Singer, states about water vapor in the Aug., 2007 edition of Imprimus: “…it is quite possible that the water vapor feedback is negative rather than positive and thereby reduces the effect of CO2.” . Singer notes this could be done several possible ways: if CO2 increases warming of the ocean there could be a higher rate of evaporation, leading to more cloudiness and humidity. The resulting low clouds would then reflect incoming solar radiation back into space, thus cooling the earth. It appears even the water vapor issue is, uh, cloudy, and in any event, any way you cut it, examples like these illustrate the self-regulating nature of earth, within a broad range, which is seen throughout the ages, again and again.
Further to the “feedback loop” question, Brian Hall has written in “Runawaylessness”
That “The postulate of positive feedback in the system (i.e., that water vapor multiplies the effect of CO2, which raises air and ocean temperatures driving even more CO2 and H2O into the atmosphere, and so on) has been disproven soundly in thorough experimentation … by Planet Earth. The geological record shows that every combination of low and high CO2 (slightly lower than present up to 20X current numbers) and high and low temperature (from tropical poles to ice sheets nearly to the equator) has been tried, at great length, and no “runaway” has occurred. The minute range of values we’re now experiencing and playing with thus has no more chance of causing runaway than spitting in the ocean has of causing a tsunami.
Julian Simon v. Paul Ehrlich wager. For those of you with intellectual honesty, google this, and find out why Ehrlich – a former catastrophic global cooler now turned catastrophic global warmer – lost the bet. You can also bet the shill Anonymous won’t have the intellectual honesty to do so.
Leftists that come on this site to propagandize – all the while showing their extreme ignorance – nevertheless make me sick.
FROM “ACCELERATING TOWARD AN ARCTIC BLUE WATER EVENT”:
This increase in atmospheric methane started as a result of carbon feedback feedback methane (CH4) from anomalously high temperatures in the Arctic and greater than average precipitation in the tropics, rather than from increased industrial emissions (Dlugokencky et al, 2009). – Link
We also know that scientists continue to be shocked and awed at the increasingly accelerated rate at which glaciers around the world are melting. Essentially, industrial civilization is whistling past the graveyard.
Because of AMEG’s honest assessment about the climatic state of the world and the horrific future mankind faces, I support their efforts. We have no time left for philosophical musings about the ethics of AMEG’s geo-engineering ideas to cool the Arctic or debating why, how, and who is responsible for the mess we are in. The Blue Ocean Event is coming and time is not on our side.
“The end of the Arctic will be the noose gently placed around our necks. Get your affairs in order, Humankind.” ~ The Final Stand
Ah yes… another scientifically ignorant leftist shill on this site. The truth is, there has been global warming recently – but it started around the time of the Revolutionary war, and is today still BELOW the average of the past 3,000 years. And this is not just for Europe, Greenland and North America, yet another red herring that has recently been thrown out by the desperate global warmers. The universality of the Viking and Mediaeval climatic optimums is written about by Kegwin, who wrote in Science, 1996:274:1504-1508, the mean surface temp of the Sargasso Sea (which lies roughly between the West Indies and the Azores), which was obtained by readings of isotope ratios in marine organism remains in sediment, shows we are, today, **********below the three thousand year average temp***********, and far below the Medieval Climatic Optimum. Civil Defense Perspectives, Mar. 2007, Vol. 23, #3, p. 1, notes that evidence for this climatic optimum has been found in all but 2 out of 103 locations where it was examined for, including Asia, Africa, South America and the western U.S.
Interestingly, the warmer times coincided not only with the best harvests, but also the least amount of major storm activity.
In case you would like corroboration of Kegwin’s study, Dr. Roy Spencer has a similar chart found at http://www.drroyspencer.com – see below – charting temperatures for the past two thousand years. Further, in a 2010 Russian study by Dergachev and Raspopov, they clearly found that not only are tree ring studies not very conclusive when compared to ice core data, but that solar cycles are telling, with the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change summarizing the work by stating “a detailed 750-year temperature reconstruction from an ice core in Siberia agrees well with measures of solar modulation based on sunspot number and carbon-14 and Be-10 estimates, and that the agreement is remarkable at multi-decadal time scales, ” and concluding that “Dergachev and Raspopov compare the solar indices of the past millennium with the borehole temperature reconstructions, demonstrating that the borehole data and solar indices agree on the long-term temperature pattern of the past thousand years. That is to say, the two parameters imply the existence of a solar-induced Medieval Warm Period (MWP) around AD 1000 to 1300 and a Little Ice Age (LIA) in the 1600s to 1700s. Thus, their study pretty much proves the existence of a global MWP, while demonstrating the link between the MWP-LIA oscillation and solar activity (see also http://tinyurl.com/227zg4 ) And it indicates that the MWP was roughly as warm as — or possibly even warmer than — it has been to date during the Current Warm Period.”
More evidence of the MWP was published in 2010, including a study by Billeaud, Tessier, and Lesueur in 2009 of the area around Mont-Saint-Michel Bay, France, showing that the Holocene has been regularly punctuated by warming periods, occurring every 1500 years, +/- 500 years The MWP also, apparently, existed in Central Asia, also as summarized by the NIPCC at http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2010/jul/28jul2010a5.html, of an article by Chen, et al, 2010. Moisture changes over the last millennium in arid central Asia: A review, synthesis and comparison with monsoon region. Quaternary Science Reviews 29: 1055-1068. Even the Chinese are in on the act: CM Ma, et al, “analyzed multi-proxy data, including, in their words, “14C, grain size, microfossil, plant seeds, and geochemical elements” — which they obtained from sediment retrieved from excavations made in the dry lake bed of Lop Nur China’s West Lake (40°27’129″ N, 90°20’083″ E) — in order “to amply discuss,” as they describe it, “the climate and environment changes during the MWP,” or Medieval Warm Period, which they identified as occurring between AD 900 and 1300. So what did they find?… Ma et al. conclude that ‘the environment was the best,’ stating that “temperature was almost the same [as] or a little higher than [italics added] nowadays.” Once again, one can see that Mr. Gore has confused the emergence from the mini ice age with anthropogenic global warming.
Accelerating into leftists stupidity, more like it. Do you really want me to go thru all the Al Gore predictions of an ice free Arctic, which was supposed to have started a decade or more ago? Are you THAT stupid?
Farley Mowat, the noted Canadian leftist and Greenpeace activist, wrote in his book West Viking (written while we were still in the global cooling scare) that there were probably at least dwarf forests growing in Greenland when the Vikings arrived in 985 AD and the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History reports “… Erik the Red discovered two areas of southwest Greenland which were suitable for farming, with grasslands and small stands of alder and birch.” You will note that it is too cold today for any type of forests to grow in Greenland, and there is zero ability to farm, unless modern technologies are utilized – and even then, crop selection is very minimal. Mowat also reported the Arctic pack ice was much less in that Viking discovery era than today. Dr. Fred Singer writes that when the Vikings first settled Greenland, they grew vegetables, and it was warm enough to allow the population to grow to 3,000 people and by 1100 AD the place was thriving enough that they had their own bishop and twelve churches. Nature reported in a 2010 article that clamshell studies also confirm Norse records.
Meanwhile, the Archeological Survey of Canada has also noted around “A.D. 1000, a warmer climate resulted in the tree line advancing 100 kilometres north of its present position.” The results of this? Especially in northern Europe, “the period between 1150 and 1300 was truly a flowering period, for population reached unprecedented levels that were never to be seen again until the late 18thcentury in many countries; the English population experienced a staggering threefold increase in its population during the last century since the Domesday Survey in 1086”.
This climate optimum (also called a climate anomaly) coincided with a period of increased solar activity (see below). Farming of various crops extended hundreds of kilometers farther north than it is possible today.
Indeed, when I was visiting Iceland at Skaftafell Nat’l Park two years ago, Icelandic historians know from extant deeds – and have put in the displays at the park – that somewhere around FORTY old Viking era farms are currently buried under the Vatnajokull glacier system (the largest in the world outside of Greenland and Antarctica). In other words, it was simply much warmer in the Icelandic settlement era than it is today. We are routinely informed of the melting of Greenland glaciers today at lower altitudes, but demonstrably there are at bare minimum low altitude glaciers in roughly the same geographic area that had seen more melting and more pronounced glacial recession one thousand years ago than we see today. Al Gore may want to visit Skaftafell National Park in Iceland on one of his many jet-setting, carbon burning trips to check the facts himself.
More evidence: There are records of grape growing occurring in places in northern Europe back during this optimum where they can’t grow today. Gregory McNamee, in the Weather Guide Calendar (Accord Publishing, 2002) noted that wine connoisseurs might have gone to England for fine vintages (can’t grow fine vintage grapes there today!), that heat loving trees like beeches carpeted Europe far into Scandinavia, and Viking ships crossed iceberg free oceans to ice free harbors in Iceland…”. Art Horn writes that “In the winter of 1249 it was so warm in England that people did not need winter clothes. They walked about in summer dress. It was so warm people thought the seasons had changed. There was no frost in England the entire winter. Can you imagine what NOAA would say if that happened next year? “
On the other side of the world, research by Panin and Nefedov in 2010, where they analyzed rivers and lakes in the Upper Volga and Upper Zapadnaya Dvina areas in Russia, also found evidence of a Medieval climatic optimum in that part of the world Even worse for the warmers, recent research has found evidence for the Medieval Climatic Optimum in the central Peruvian Andes, southern South America, China, see, http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2012/jan/18jan2012a4.html, where the author XJ Zhou notes “temperatures in the Medieval Warm Period are comparable to those in the current warm period over China,” and Antarctica, Li, Y., Cole-Dai, J. and Zhou, L. 2009. Glaciochemical evidence in an East Antarctica ice core of a recent (AD 1450-1850) neoglacial episode. Journal of Geophysical Research 114: 10.1029/2008JD011091 (summarized at http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/sep/20sep2011a5.html
Amazingly, there is even clear evidence of the LIA and MWP in Antarctica- see http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/03/paper-antarctica-did-experience-both.html#more as mow
AMEG= Arctic Methane Emergency Group
The truth of our predicament has been criminally concealed since the 1970s by the fossil fuel industry which all the while knew that an overheated Arctic would melt away, exposing fresh deposits of carbon for them to exploit. Unfortunately the bonanza they planned for has not materialized; melting permafrost wreaks havoc on infrastructure and exploration. The cryospheric regions of earth, key geographic features regulating the planet’s climate, were systematically dismantled within the geologic blink of an eye; such environmental changes are imperceptible to the real-time cognitive processing of humans, but in geological ‘deep time’ these events are cataclysmic and portend a dire future for humans. There are more signs that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is slowing down.
“We’re sitting on these planetary boundaries right now, argues Rockstrom, and if these systems flip from one stable state to another — if the Amazon tips into a savannah, if the Arctic loses its ice cover and instead of reflecting the sun’s rays starts absorbing them in water, if the glaciers all melt and cannot feed the rivers — nature will be fine, but we will not be.” ~ Johan Rockstrom, director of the Stockholm Resilience Center
The truth is, Mr Fraud Anonymous, that the BIG GREEN MONEY scam has been criminally concealed by people like YOU, you disgusting leftist. The Financial Stability Bd recently reported that $93 freaking TRILLION was to be spend on AGW of the next 15 years. How many more Solyndras will we get from that! Or are you, Mr. Fraud Anonymous, one of those who stand to benefit from this public tax dollar largess, like carbon billionaire Al Gore?
There has actually been ZERO global warming since 1998 – not that you are intellectually honest enough to know that. In fact, I routinely hike at Bow Glacier Falls in Alberta, in the Canadian Rockies. I have pictures from 1899, which show the glacier there far advanced from pix I have today. Of course, only leftist shills like you would be so ignorant to draw the conclusion you do from this. The truth is, Einstein, that in the 1800s, and even into the early 1900s, we were still emerging from the LIA (re. which you have no clue what that basic climatological acronym is, correct?), so ***of course it is warmer than the 1800s. **** Truth is, as the Kegwin study on marine radioisotope in the Sargasso Sea has shown, while we are indeed warmer than the 1800s, ****************we are still below the 3,000 year average temp************ and below the MWP.
E.g., there is that picea glauca (white spruce) stump on the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula in tundra, *********some 100km north of the current treeline.*********** There is a photo of this by Professor Ritchie (University of Toronto). Radiocarbon date was 4940 ±140 years Before Present (BP), and was featured in Hubert Lamb’s classic work Climate, Present, Past and Future. See http://drtimball.com/2012/sensationalist-and-distorted-climate-stories-increase-as-climate-science-failures-exposed/ for this picture, as well as other AGW info.
Similarly, two recent papers, reported by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, one in Earth-Science Reviews and the other is in Chinese Science Bulletin, reported studies of “key chemical contents in micro-drilled giant clams shells and coral samples to demonstrate that in the South China Sea the warm period of the Middle Ages was warmer than the present. The scientists examined surveys of the ratio of strontium to calcium content and heavy oxygen isotopes, both are sensitive recorders of sea surface temperatures past and present. The aragonite bicarbonate of the Tridacna gigas clam-shell is so fine-grained that daily growth-lines are exposed by micro-drilling with an exceptionally fine drill-bit, allowing an exceptionally detailed time-series of sea-temperature changes to be compiled – a feat of detection worthy of Sherlock Holmes himself. By using overlaps between successive generations of giant clams and corals, the three scientists – Hong Yan of the Institute of Earth Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Yuhong Wang of Fudan University, Shanghai – reconstructed a record of sea-surface temperature changes going back 2500 years. The Roman and Mediaeval Warm Periods both showed up prominently in the western Pacific and East Asia. Sea surface temperatures varied considerably over the 2500-year period.” Dr. Soon concludes :” “The UN’s climate panel should never have trusted the claim that the medieval warm period was mainly a European phenomenon. It was clearly warm in South China Sea, too.”
Another study, by earth sciences professor Zunli Lu (formerly of Oxford, now at Syracuse Univ.), studied samples of crystal called ikaite, which forms in cold water, and will melt at room temperature. Samples were taken by Lu and colleagues, examined for variation caused by temperature fluctuations during formation, and dated. The result? Lu writes: “This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula.” What does this mean? It means that the MWP was not simply a localized event in northern Europe, or even the northern hemisphere. And if it was as warm 1,000 years ago as now all over the world, Al Gore is simply wrong. Study summary by the UK Register at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/23/warm_period_little_ice_age_global/
Either you, Sir Anonymous, are a liar, or are ignorant – or maybe both.
The truth is, BIG GREEN MONEY has been criminally flogging AGW. E.g., there has been ZERO global warming since 1998. Mann’s hockey stick? An outright scam. Anyone remember Climategate a, for example, Trenberth’s “Hide the decline” (in temps) email? I sure do. Ever hear of Solyndra? Tonopah Energy? Why they want Bundy’s ranch? Nah, didn’t think you had the intellectual honesty, Anon.
93 freaking TRILLION to be spend on AGE over the next 15 years. Biggest scam in the history of the planet. And Anon is here to push the scam with SHFT readers.
SUMMARY OF AMEG PRESS BRIEFINGS:
• The tipping point for the collapse of Arctic glaciers has been breached and a runaway meltdown of the North Pole ice cap is currently unfolding. Arctic ice is decaying exponentially. (For a better visualization, picture an area of ice the size of the state of Maine being lost every year since 1979.):
Highly reflective snow and ice is being replaced by dark sea water which is much more [absorbent] of solar energy causing the Arctic to warm much, much faster than the rest of the planet. This is destabilizing the atmospheric air circulation and ocean circulation. It is reducing the temperature gradient or difference between the equator and the pole which slows down the jet stream making it wavier with higher ridges and troughs. The jet stream has also become prone to stagnating in the same region. Very warm, humid southerly air can go to much higher latitudes than before, and cold arctic air can go to much southerly latitudes than before. This in itself is representing an enormous positive reinforcing feedback (not positive for humans) which is carrying more and more heat up into the Arctic and more and more coldness from the Arctic further south. What this will do is fracture the jet streams, leading us to a very different world, a less predictable climatic world where weather extremes such as torrential rains and extended droughts and floods come to dominate the weather system. The frequency, severity, and duration of these events all increase. These events also occur in regions where we did not have this before. For example, we get 80cm(32 inches) of snow in the Atacama Desert which is the driest region of the planet – an unprecedented event. We get torrential rains where we had desert before. We get desert where we had moderate temperatures before. This is already happening now with just 0.85 °C of warming that the world has experienced since the start of the industrial revolution. This situation is very dependent on the conditions in the Arctic. As the Arctic continues to exponentially decline in snow and sea ice cover, these extremes will undoubtedly have to increase. The physics of the system says so. Because we now live in a warmer planet, there is more evaporation of the oceans leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere which fuels stronger storms. (The atmosphere can hold 7% moisture for every 1°C increase in average temp. Since we have increased the average temp by ~0.8°C from pre-industrial times, we have 6% more water vapor in the atmosphere). Because we have changed the chemistry of the atmosphere, we have changed the planet’s weather and climate.
• Once we reach a point of no Arctic sea ice, perhaps as early as
Because we have changed the chemistry of the atmosphere, we have changed the planet’s weather and climate.
“WE” have changed it ???? Perhaps you missed this story about the ice caps melting from volcanic activity UNDER the caps?
“This Is Crazy” – Antarctic Supervolcano Is Melting The Ice-Caps From Within
Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University – where I used to teach years ago – in Ottawa, stated he used to teach his students C02 was the cause of global warming, but who wrote on April 30, 2007. He changed views after examining facts following his research on “the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific.” “[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator),Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances, As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate,” Patterson concluded by noting changing from a global warmer “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go.”
Also out of Univ. of Ottawa, Ontario (my wife’s school, the competition!), Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, who now is a skeptic after examining the evidence. “I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe” He continues: “However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol,” See his 2005 documentary “Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You’re Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change.” Another Univ. of Ottawa prof, Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa,, who wrote “The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did the CO2 scenario…It was the results of my work on past records, on geological time scales, that led me to realize the discrepancies with empirical observations….”. Incidentally, Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg, is another Canadian dissenter.
Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas, University of Auckland, N.Z., also an ex-Gore acolyte, says “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation. I accept there may be small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute,”
– Hans Labohm, one of the expert reviewers for the IPCC, another defector from the warming scam has even gone so far as to put some videos on the subject on the German sites http://blackinformant.com/2007/11/06/the-debate-is-not-over/ and http://www.konrad-fischer-info.de/7video.htm. Some other videos worth viewing are Viscount Monckton’s Apocalypse? No!, found at http://www.scieneandpublicpolicy.org, the Australian geologist Bob Carter’s YouTube fact based lecture (just search for Bob Carter Climate Change to view it) or http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/, by the Ireland’s Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney.
The only point of no return we have reached is the public’s tolerance of Al Gore’s repeated bloviations about “the ice will all be gone by 2003….” which of course is now fifteen years ago or the absurd computer models that have proved horribly wrong – largely by putting in ridiculous assumptions – Garbage in, garbage out.
And Arctic sea ice has NOT exponentially declined; nor did we have have satellite records until a few decades back, so we wouldn’t know anyway what this is relative to. However, we do know from Viking records it was MUCH warmer in the MWP – which of course, you, sir fraud, have NO clue about even that basic meteorological term, do you. Yet you come here and bloviate your leftist, science-denier AGW horse manure. Disgusting.
I don’t suppose it is possible they over-fished the Cod and destroyed the Biomass? Warm Pacific water AKA El Nino is a regular occurrence as well as is La Nina. These are primarily Sun driven events. Cod are bottom fish that eat about anything they can. It is hard to believe that warmer water would not increase the availability of sand eels, whiting, haddock, squid, crabs, mussels, worms, mackerel, mollusks, herring, and smaller cod, if for no reason other than increased mixing of Oxygen rich shallow waters with deep colder waters.
Speaking of Herring, that fishery mysteriously collapsed around 2010 and really hasn’t recovered very well.
The problem isn’t climate, it is overfishing.
I eat sea food 3 or more days a week, so I am sensitive to the availability and cost of sea food. Due to my age I have no concerns about eating farmed fish, but I avoid wild seafood from clearly over-fished fisheries, that are only open due to political pressure.
Good Job. I like the cut of your jib.
Other news from the west coast…
California ‘Sanctuary City’ Allows Illegals, But Stops Church from Feeding Hungry Americans
“Last week the Malibu United Methodist Church was told to close its kitchen where every Wednesday it hosted a meal for the area’s homeless, according to KCBS.
“Yeah, it’s a safe place here and everybody is welcome,” said Micah Johnson, a homeless man who has been grateful for the church’s meals. “The food is really good. It is home cooked and a lot of TLC involved.”
Church officials reported that they have fed the homeless since 2014 and lately have been feeding up to 80 people each week.
“We can’t pretend like it doesn’t exist in our backyard. We can’t pretend like it only exists outside of Malibu,” church volunteer Kay Gabbard said.
The church worker said she fears that many of the people who usually eat at her kitchen will forage through dumpsters when they aren’t eating at the church.”
Well, at least we won’t have to worry about an EMP event killing us off…..
I think it is time to stop calling the worlds biggest morons, who continually ignore Fukushima, scientists! True scientists aren’t birds with their heads in the sand.
Didn’t some book say a third of the oceans would die? And isn’t the pacific one third of the worlds oceans?
The Earth is flat anyways. Who cares?
Does it really pay to continue talking about climate change, warming, cooling, whatever? All these brilliant scientists, including a few on this forum, think that the climate we have now is supposed to be the “right” climate. Where is that written? 1 thousand or 1 million years ago maybe was the earths ideal climate.
Live your life and prep for what you think is coming.
I guess you could dig up some ponds and farm raise fish since “farm raised” salmon is on sale at just $9.99 a pound. Probably gmo. Fish is not on the menu.
I’m pretty sure Salmon is raised in Saltwater. I’ve sailed around more than a few of those farms. I’m in Hawaii and I don’t think I pay that much for Farm Salmon. My brother can send me wild Salmon for about the same price( he is a guide in Alaska). What is hard to get is “green” Red western Cedar planks to cook the Salmon on. That is the only way to cook Salmon, green Cedar planks over an open fire.
Now if someone here can tell me how to get cheap Halibut I’d be ecstatic.
Maybe they need to find out who is buying black caviar for thousands of dollars a pound. Poached from the declining sturgeon population.
I have not eaten any fish from the West Coast,Canada, or Alaska since the Fukushima melt down. Nor any fish that is caught in the oceans or seas.
There is a study done by two scientists named Drevnick and Brooks on the impact of mercury in tuna and blue marlin in the Alaskan waters. They cited the mercury as being of “anthropogenic origin” and said that area has weather patterns that made it probable that the mercury in the area would be precipitated around Alaskan waters. They recommended that several species (including the cod) be checked for mercury. It is possible that this mercury is what is responsible for the cod’s ability to thrive and multiply.
There is no question that areas of the oceans are becoming dead zones. The question is “to what extent is it due to human activities and the use of fossil fuels?”. The burning of coal (especially unfiltered coal) releases toxic metals into the air. There has been no solution to humanity’s energy needs without fossil fuels. We saw the effect of unfiltered coal burning in China’s agriculture. The same is probably true of India.
Fishy, fishy in da brook, Daddy catch ’em wit a hook. Mommy fry it in da pan, Baby eat ’em like a man! Wheee!
“Control the food supply and you control the people”.
(Henry Kissinger). HAARP being used to destroy the upper ozone layer which in turn destroyed over 50% of the plankton with increased UVC radiation the result. Plankton are the foundation of the food chain and the main producer of Earth’s oxygen supply. On land geoengineering is used to poison the atmosphere and re-direct weather systems away from America’s leading crop producer: California and institute droughts. What does fall to the earth is aluminum filled nano-particles that poison the soil and you. GMO’s to the rescue with Monsanto holding the patent for aluminum resistant seeds. Coincidence? What do you think?
How are scientist “shocked”? It blows my mind we have known this would come for so long and they are shocked. How many theories and studies have we seen that state that ocean life is set to go extinct in the 2040s
I believe our oceans are very important.
As the oceans go, so goes the planet.
It’s not just to do with ocean currents. Fish swim about. Some migrate huge distances to spawning grounds. Some stay put but eat other fish that travel about. Therefore they only have to visit a Fukushima hotspot or eat another critter that has to become affected.