BajaNomad

Bait fish decline (reported at Baja science conference)

Whale-ista - 12-30-2013 at 11:04 AM

From news report:
FIS - Worldnews - Small pelagic abundance associated with climate change

http://shar.es/9b60R

"The volume of sardines, anchovy and mackerel catches declined significantly in the country in recent years, a situation that links to what happens in the rest of the Pacific coast of North America, the National Fisheries Institute (Inapesca) informed.

"Mexican, American and Canadian scientists addressed this issue in early December at the Centre for Scientific Research and Higher Education of Ensenada (CICESE), where they met to propose measures to help improve the production of these small pelagic fish."



http://www.fis.com/fis/worldnews/worldnews.asp?monthyear=&am...

coconaco - 12-30-2013 at 11:36 AM

They "think" it is climate change.

no mention of the over harvesting to feed fish pens and pigs.

Sweetwater - 12-30-2013 at 12:25 PM

Well, in conjunction with that, does anyone know how those fish are being monitored for Japanese radiation? Small bait fish are likely to pick up the Strontium that concentrates in bones. That ocean radiation flume is "aimed" at So Cal and Baja and should have arrived by now. I haven't seen much reporting about it in either location.

Hook - 12-30-2013 at 12:47 PM

I cant imagine that the amount needed to feed fish pens is significant compared to the amount turned into animal feed, fertilizer and fish oil for paint/varnish, etc.

But the number one use of sardines is still for direct human consumption, worldwide. Maybe not in the Pacific coast of North America, however.

DaliDali - 12-30-2013 at 01:21 PM

I can say without equivocation that there a not near as many "bait balls" up and down the SOC now, as I have seen in years past.

The Conception bay area used to be rife will bait balls, now whenever I pass by, hardly any are seen.
Same thing in my local fishing area Loreto.....there were always balls of bait....all over. Inshore, offshore......in-between shores.
Now in the last couple of years, even the sardines are absent from the harbor area, when before, with one to two tosses of a net, a tank full could be had.
Now it's scratch for a few wayward ones, a jurelito now and again and old Tecate bottles.

more on sardine/anchovy changes

Whale-ista - 12-30-2013 at 01:31 PM

Lots of research out there. Dr. Baumgartner has been doing research at Scripps and CICESE for decades. He's also an avid waterman who has sailed/fished Baja since 1970s.

Here's another paper and research proposal: http://www.sccoos.org/docs/NOAA_FY07_IOOS.pdf

Pacific Sardines
Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax) historically supported the largest commercial fishery in the state of California. Beginning in the late 1940s and continuing into the 1960s the sardine population of the California Current suffered a dramatic decline from almost 4 million metric tons to less than 10,000 tons during a period of cooling of the coastal ocean (Fig. 1). The sardines disappeared from their traditional fishing grounds precipitating the collapse of the sardine fishing and processing industries and impacting local economies in the region. A recovery in the population could finally be detected in the late 1980s (Fig. 1).
The public blamed poor management and overfishing for the decline while fishermen blamed it on climatic changes. Both may be partially correct. Changes in sardine biomass are thought to reflect variability in the natural environment, but the mechanisms relating physical changes to sardine production remain obscure (Lluch-Belda et al., 1989; Chavez et al., 2003).

Sweetwater - 12-30-2013 at 02:10 PM

The Pacific Ocean got a huge dose of radioactive Iodine, Cesium and Strontium with the breach of the reactors at ***ushima. The corp behind those reactors, TEPCO, has been notorious in lying to cover up the extent of the initial and ongoing release of radiation. It's here and won't be leaving soon.
Quote:

“Thyroid cancers up in ***ushima“, Japan Times, 23 December 2013 — “Experts say link to disaster not yet established” Excerpt: Screening of ***ushima residents who were 18 or younger at the time of the 2011 nuclear disaster had found 26 confirmed and 32 suspected cases of thyroid cancer as of Sept. 30, according to the ***ushima Prefectural Government. The number of confirmed cases was up by eight from August, while the suspected cases rose by seven, the prefecture-led study found. About 226,000 people have undergone the screening program since it kicked off in October 2011. The 26 confirmed cases underwent surgery and are doing well, according to the prefecture. A panel of experts at the prefecture concluded Tuesday that it is too early to link the cases to the nuclear disaster, given that papillary thyroid cancer — the type found in the 26 people — develops at a very slow pace, according to prefectural officials. Following the 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe, it took about four to five years for thyroid cancers in significant number to be detected. Thyroid cancer is considered a major health concern for children because radioactive iodine spewed by the crippled nuclear plant tends to accumulate in thyroid glands, especially among young children. Following the Chernobyl disaster, more than 6,000 children were diagnosed with thyroid cancer, according to the U.N. Scientific Committee, which attributed many of the cases to consumption of contaminated milk. According to media reports, thyroid cancer normally strikes about 1 to 2 people aged 10 to 14 per million in Japan, far less than about 115 in 1 million cases in ***ushima. However, the figure cannot be simply compared, because the screening in ***ushima targets all children under 18, most of whom are without any symptoms, and no such screening is being done elsewhere in Japan.



Cypress - 12-30-2013 at 02:13 PM

No sense in being silly about it, climate change caused by man is a hoax and if not for the politically correct crowd would already be totally debunked and laid to rest. Overfishing, pure and simple, is the reason for the disappearance of bait balls and fish stocks. :(

weebray - 12-30-2013 at 03:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cypress
No sense in being silly about it, climate change caused by man is a hoax and if not for the politically correct crowd would already be totally debunked and laid to rest. Overfishing, pure and simple, is the reason for the disappearance of bait balls and fish stocks. :(

That's a pretty ignorant statement. Climate change is no longer debated by educated people, it's a fact. It isn't just one thing (overfishing) that has caused the decline although it has had a significant impact. Whining about the Mexican co-ops netting for dog food speaks only to a part of the problem. It's a multi-faceted problem requiring treatment and action on many fronts. If you choose to fight the dog food industry good on you but at the same time recognize that their are other people working on other factors and you should welcome their efforts.

mulegemichael - 12-30-2013 at 04:12 PM

cypress....if "climate change caused by man" is a hoax, then is "overfishing by man" also a hoax?....i kinda think they're one in the same.

vgabndo - 12-30-2013 at 04:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cypress
No sense in being silly about it, climate change caused by man is a hoax and if not for the politically correct crowd would already be totally debunked and laid to rest. Overfishing, pure and simple, is the reason for the disappearance of bait balls and fish stocks. :(


I'm sure this will have no effect on you Cypress, but the blithering idiots listed on link below DO disagree with you. They have some limited education and some moderate resources to back their claims. All the scientific "debunking" a thoughtful person might need is contained in the work of the following:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Here is a great documentary available from Netflix. Released last year, it includes remarkable footage of the most massive glacier calving ever videotaped. The time-lapse photography of the shrinking glaciers is one-of-a-kind. Jim Balog and Extreme Ice Survey did the movie, and it is well worth the hour +. Go directly to 1:04:30 to watch the photographers being struck speechless.

http://movies.netflix.com/WiPlayer?movieid=70229919&trki...

If all these folks are the "politically correct" crowd, I'm sure proud to be one of them. The US National Academy of Sciences membership IS ~95% atheistic, they'd have me if I could just qualify!:lol::lol::lol:



[Edited on 12-31-2013 by vgabndo]

'Cimate change is no longer debated....'

neilm81301 - 12-31-2013 at 12:02 AM

Especially by those folks stuck in the ice in Antarctica.
Didn't Big Al tell us, years ago, that the antarctic ice would be gone by now?
Neil

Cypress - 12-31-2013 at 05:15 AM

Regarding climate change. The scientists were caught cooking the books and suppressing evidence in order to sell their man-made climate change agenda. Remember the "hockey stick" graph? I guess not. The climate is always changing. I've seen what happens when regs are formulated and enforced to protect fish stocks. It's amazing how fast some species will recover.

Russ - 12-31-2013 at 07:17 AM

Our planet is doomed The train wreck in N. Dakota, recent volcanoes and huge forest fires have doomed us all ..... I don't think man can match the extent that nature adds to our ruin. And from the selected articles I've read many "experts" agree.
BAN NET FISHING!

[Edited on 12-31-2013 by Russ]

monoloco - 12-31-2013 at 08:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cypress
Regarding climate change. The scientists were caught cooking the books and suppressing evidence in order to sell their man-made climate change agenda. Remember the "hockey stick" graph? I guess not. The climate is always changing. I've seen what happens when regs are formulated and enforced to protect fish stocks. It's amazing how fast some species will recover.
"The scientists were caught cooking the books" Yes, they all met on a secret island and conspired to push their "climate change agenda" so Al Gore could make millions.:lol:

Cypress - 12-31-2013 at 09:16 AM

Monoloco, Ridicule is a cheap and easy plow, but the facts are there. Just go online and research it. Look for the "hockey stick" graph controversy pertaining to man made climate change.:D

monoloco - 12-31-2013 at 09:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cypress
Monoloco, Ridicule is a cheap and easy plow, but the facts are there. Just go online and research it. Look for the "hockey stick" graph controversy pertaining to man made climate change.:D
Yes and so is hyperbole. If some scientists did indeed "cook the books" as you claim, it diminishes your argument to paint the thousands of scientists studying the issue, with that same brush.

boiling bait fish

mtgoat666 - 12-31-2013 at 11:07 AM

Climate Change Worse Than We Thought, Likely To Be 'Catastrophic Rather Than Simply Dangerous'

Climate change may be far worse than scientists thought, causing global temperatures to rise by at least 4 degrees Celsius by 2100, or about 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit, according to a new study.

The study, published in the journal Nature, takes a fresh look at clouds' effect on the planet, according to a report by The Guardian. The research found that as the planet heats, fewer sunlight-reflecting clouds form, causing temperatures to rise further in an upward spiral.

That number is double what many governments agree is the threshold for dangerous warming. Aside from dramatic environmental shifts like melting sea ice, many of the ills of the modern world -- starvation, poverty, war and disease -- are likely to get worse as the planet warms.

"4C would likely be catastrophic rather than simply dangerous," lead researcher Steven Sherwood told the Guardian. "For example, it would make life difficult, if not impossible, in much of the tropics, and would guarantee the eventual melting of the Greenland ice sheet and some of the Antarctic ice sheet."

Another report released earlier this month said the abrupt changes caused by rapid warming should be cause for concern, as many of climate change's biggest threats are those we aren't ready for.

In September, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said it was "extremely likely" that human activity was the dominant cause of global warming, or about 95 percent certain -- often the gold standard in scientific accuracy.

"If this isn't an alarm bell, then I don't know what one is. If ever there were an issue that demanded greater cooperation, partnership, and committed diplomacy, this is it," U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said after the IPCC report was released.

====================

of course, the easiest solution to all this is to accuse scientists of fibbing!

baby, it's hot outside

mtgoat666 - 12-31-2013 at 11:16 AM




FISH

captkw - 1-1-2014 at 10:58 AM

I Think that the pacific is changing FAST !! This last year (2013) I had to tow my boat 3 HRS north if I wanted to catch salmon !! the water here in Monterey bay was too warm for the salmon...and Now with NO rain or snow its a Very bad combo with radition heading here....plus the fact of possible no river water for the salmon to spawn in....to be updated.....

Whale-ista - 1-1-2014 at 11:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by captkw
I Think that the pacific is changing FAST !! This last year (2013) I had to tow my boat 3 HRS north if I wanted to catch salmon !! the water here in Monterey bay was too warm for the salmon...and Now with NO rain or snow its a Very bad combo with radition heading here....plus the fact of possible no river water for the salmon to spawn in....to be updated.....


thanks Capt. You reminded me that 20 years ago I met a commercial salmon fisherman from NorCal, near Arcata, who was in DC to discuss deforestation with EPA. He worked as a logger during dry summer season, then fished other times of year- a very common combo at the time.

But what he and other fisher/loggermen noticed was they were destroying their own future livelihoods by clearcutting forests and destroying salmon spawning grounds, then overfishing the northern CA coast. It was a terrible, unsustainable combination, and he had done it all his adult life and realized it needed to change.

He met with EPA officials and discussed clear cuts that were taking all trees, and left them with fewer and fewer local work options during the summer as they needed to travel longer distances to un-logged forest lands, adding to travel/housing costs. And fewer salmon near shore meant more days at sea, higher fuel costs, time away from family etc.

He was a powerful voice from both the personal and the fishing/logging industry perspective. Sadly, he died of cancer several years ago. But during his time he made a huge impact on protecting forests and fish for the people who want to harvest them in the future.

He never worried if he was 100% right about what was causing the problem. He just acted in the best way he personally could to make a change for the better for others in the future.

vgabndo - 1-1-2014 at 12:02 PM

Cypress says:

"Monoloco, Ridicule is a cheap and easy plow, but the facts are there. Just go online and research it. Look for the "hockey stick" graph controversy pertaining to man made climate change."

Here is the "hockey stick" graph updated to 2012 to the best of the knowledge of the best climate scientists on the planet.



This is from the documentary I linked earlier and from a presentation at an international climate conference.

Those links also show see-it-with-your-own-eyes evidence of the loss of glacial ice in very recent time. It appears that Al Gores predictions of the melt down are FAR more accurate than the predictions of folks like you who claim that nothing is happening.

The evidence for CO2 levels "hockysticking" is taken from the studies of the atmosphere captured in bubbles in 800,000 year old and younger ice. Clearly CO2 levels have gone up and down over the last eight tenths of a million years, but now those levels are screaming up toward twice what they have ever been before.

Many climate change deniers are also Young Earth Creationists, do you also hold a belief in that myth Cypress? That would explain a lot.

Here's a test: True or false, St. Nicolas (Santa Claus) was a never married, non-white, religious fanatic who, by the rules of his order, starved himself SKINNY as part of his cult practices.

If you answer: True. I hold out some hope for you. (wry smile)

Sweetwater - 1-1-2014 at 12:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by captkw
I Think that the pacific is changing FAST !! This last year (2013) I had to tow my boat 3 HRS north if I wanted to catch salmon !! the water here in Monterey bay was too warm for the salmon...and Now with NO rain or snow its a Very bad combo with radition heading here....plus the fact of possible no river water for the salmon to spawn in....to be updated.....


Just ask the Rocky Mountain ski industry about climate change. I think we now have 8 of the past 10 years with drought conditions which means that the snowpack they rely on is essentially absent. Both sides of the continent are downhill from here and that impact on the fisheries can not be denied (except by those who ignore reality).

That radiation plume is another matter that happens to sync up with climate change. Someone might say it has nothing to do with it but, in reality, the two radioactive isotopes of Cesium did not exist in the environment until humans began their nuclear activities. And Strontium was not abundant either. The easily tracked radioactive Iodine has a relatively shorter half life but a huge impact on biological organisms and in humans, it's the growing children who are the first and most visible victims.

Edit: I did want to add one other fact, it is the beloved tuna who are accumulating the highest doses of radiation amongst the fish, due to their large size and fat content as well as the forage fish that they eat.

I hope that our planet survives the human invasion, it has been changed by us and I fully expect it to reject us at the point when we become a significant threat.

BTW, Happy New Year

[Edited on 1-1-2014 by Sweetwater]

Cypress - 1-1-2014 at 12:46 PM

The earths climate may be changing, but is it caused by man?:?:

monoloco - 1-1-2014 at 01:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cypress
The earths climate may be changing, but is it caused by man?:?:
The fact that it has been proven that the increase in CO2 corresponds exactly with industrialization, coupled with fossil climate records, and atmospheric CO2 measurements from ancient ice cores, make a pretty good case that the burning of fossil fuels has contributed to climate change. I am not aware of any evidence of a time when high levels of CO2 were present during an ice age. That doesn't necessarily mean that we should significantly disrupt our economy by adopting technology that at best will have a minimal effect on this process.

vgabndo - 1-1-2014 at 06:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by monoloco
Quote:
Originally posted by Cypress
The earths climate may be changing, but is it caused by man?:?:
The fact that it has been proven that the increase in CO2 corresponds exactly with industrialization, coupled with fossil climate records, and atmospheric CO2 measurements from ancient ice cores, make a pretty good case that the burning of fossil fuels has contributed to climate change. I am not aware of any evidence of a time when high levels of CO2 were present during an ice age. That doesn't necessarily mean that we should significantly disrupt our economy by adopting technology that at best will have a minimal effect on this process.


Well put. X2

mtgoat666 - 1-1-2014 at 08:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by monoloco
Quote:
Originally posted by Cypress
The earths climate may be changing, but is it caused by man?:?:
The fact that it has been proven that the increase in CO2 corresponds exactly with industrialization, coupled with fossil climate records, and atmospheric CO2 measurements from ancient ice cores, make a pretty good case that the burning of fossil fuels has contributed to climate change. I am not aware of any evidence of a time when high levels of CO2 were present during an ice age. That doesn't necessarily mean that we should significantly disrupt our economy by adopting technology that at best will have a minimal effect on this process.


In past 100 years all polluters have said pollution controls would be expensive and bad for the economy. They were all wrong.

DaliDali - 1-1-2014 at 08:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mtgoat666
Quote:
Originally posted by monoloco
Quote:
Originally posted by Cypress
The earths climate may be changing, but is it caused by man?:?:
The fact that it has been proven that the increase in CO2 corresponds exactly with industrialization, coupled with fossil climate records, and atmospheric CO2 measurements from ancient ice cores, make a pretty good case that the burning of fossil fuels has contributed to climate change. I am not aware of any evidence of a time when high levels of CO2 were present during an ice age. That doesn't necessarily mean that we should significantly disrupt our economy by adopting technology that at best will have a minimal effect on this process.


In past 100 years all polluters have said pollution controls would be expensive and bad for the economy. They were all wrong.


Hyperbole lives on both sides of the debate.

Al said the ice cap would be all melted by now and the coasts would be underwater this year.

DaliDali - 1-1-2014 at 08:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by monoloco
Quote:
Originally posted by Cypress
The earths climate may be changing, but is it caused by man?:?:


That doesn't necessarily mean that we should significantly disrupt our economy by adopting technology that at best will have a minimal effect on this process.


Bingo....

Pompano - 1-3-2014 at 11:11 AM

Hmmmm..... one must pause and think...assess all the information...compare to history...

...grab a rod and chuck a lure into the backyard!


Osprey - 1-3-2014 at 11:22 AM

Around the globe sophisticated and well financed beach resort developers are building mega bizzillion resorts on GANA DE MAR, brand new beaches.

I don't think they would be swayed to stop and rethink the whole thing by a picture of transitional lagoons in a bay within a bay.

Whale-ista - 1-3-2014 at 12:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Pompano
Hmmmm..... one must pause and think...assess all the information...compare to history...

...grab a rod and chuck a lure into the backyard!




Wow, high tide! Where is this?

Pompano - 1-3-2014 at 01:31 PM

Whale-ista,

That photo shows Playa Burros, just over the hill from my place at Coyote Bay...all within the Bay of Conception.

It's a normal thing for that spot, however..as that whole area is well within a flood zone due to high tides. The pic shows it at one of the highest tides. I posted it in jest per all the global warming/cooling theories. This is reality. My seawall at Coyote next door was in place for 50 years without showing any abnormal rise or drop in water levels. But I doubt it's over yet...as all the horses have not finished the race.

It is also a place where innumerable vehicles have gotten stuck to the axles while trying to cross the low area to the rear. I've helped to pull out several over the years. :rolleyes:

edit for spelling errors and to add this photo from Burros Beach. During the hotter months it's a favorite place to cool off and play cribbage.





[Edited on 1-4-2014 by Pompano]

Cypress - 1-3-2014 at 01:39 PM

I've seen quite a few weather related "flood tides". If you ever get down to The Point in Biloxi check out the height of those blue rings painted on the telephone poles.:D

vgabndo - 1-3-2014 at 06:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DaliDali
Quote:
Originally posted by mtgoat666
Quote:
Originally posted by monoloco
Quote:
Originally posted by Cypress
The earths climate may be changing, but is it caused by man?:?:
The fact that it has been proven that the increase in CO2 corresponds exactly with industrialization, coupled with fossil climate records, and atmospheric CO2 measurements from ancient ice cores, make a pretty good case that the burning of fossil fuels has contributed to climate change. I am not aware of any evidence of a time when high levels of CO2 were present during an ice age. That doesn't necessarily mean that we should significantly disrupt our economy by adopting technology that at best will have a minimal effect on this process.


In past 100 years all polluters have said pollution controls would be expensive and bad for the economy. They were all wrong.


Hyperbole lives on both sides of the debate.

Al said the ice cap would be all melted by now and the coasts would be underwater this year.


Watch the documentary, and tell me that Al gore was more wrong than right!!!!

http://movies.netflix.com/WiPlayer?movieid=70229919&trki... p;fdvd=true

His prediction of the rapid diminution of the ice pack was SPOT ON, he missed the time frame. So take another shot at the messenger. Someone had to be the bearer of bad news, and given the faults and errors found in his work, he still gets a B+ for the stuff that's been proven right.

I personally know only one world class visionary, Bill Kauth, and he has said to me: "The situation is far too dire for pessimism."

He's working on building small sustainable communities of like minded people who are committed to very high standards of responsibility and accountability. There is no evidence that humankind has the will to be responsible, and so much of the third world is just now tasting the gluttony that we fatties have known for generations. They will not go back. (voluntarily) The human condition is not on an upswing.

The denial of science as a point of political conformity was illustrated in this new PEW poll. I get no hope from those numbers between the science deniers and the rest of us.

My new favorite bumper sticker is: I'm feeling so much better
since I gave up all hope.

[Edited on 1-4-2014 by vgabndo]

pew poll.png - 23kB

News Science Peer review and scientific publishing Nobel winner declares boycott of top science journals

neilm81301 - 1-3-2014 at 07:04 PM

Randy Schekman says his lab will no longer send papers to Nature, Cell and Science as they distort scientific process
====================

"of course, the easiest solution to all this is to accuse scientists of fibbing!"
====================

"Leading academic journals are distorting the scientific process and represent a "tyranny" that must be broken, according to a Nobel prize winner who has declared a boycott on the publications.

Randy Schekman, a US biologist who won the Nobel prize in physiology or medicine this year and receives his prize in Stockholm on Tuesday, said his lab would no longer send research papers to the top-tier journals, Nature, Cell and Science.

Schekman said pressure to publish in "luxury" journals encouraged researchers to cut corners and pursue trendy fields of science instead of doing more important work. The problem was exacerbated, he said, by editors who were not active scientists but professionals who favoured studies that were likely to make a splash."

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-...

Neil

DaliDali - 1-4-2014 at 07:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by vgabndo
Quote:
Originally posted by DaliDali
Quote:
Originally posted by mtgoat666
Quote:
Originally posted by monoloco
Quote:
Originally posted by Cypress
The earths climate may be changing, but is it caused by man?:?:
The fact that it has been proven that the increase in CO2 corresponds exactly with industrialization, coupled with fossil climate records, and atmospheric CO2 measurements from ancient ice cores, make a pretty good case that the burning of fossil fuels has contributed to climate change. I am not aware of any evidence of a time when high levels of CO2 were present during an ice age. That doesn't necessarily mean that we should significantly disrupt our economy by adopting technology that at best will have a minimal effect on this process.


In past 100 years all polluters have said pollution controls would be expensive and bad for the economy. They were all wrong.


Hyperbole lives on both sides of the debate.

Al said the ice cap would be all melted by now and the coasts would be underwater this year.


Watch the documentary, and tell me that Al gore was more wrong than right!!!!

http://movies.netflix.com/WiPlayer?movieid=70229919&trki... p;fdvd=true

His prediction of the rapid diminution of the ice pack was SPOT ON, he missed the time frame. So take another shot at the messenger. Someone had to be the bearer of bad news, and given the faults and errors found in his work, he still gets a B+ for the stuff that's been proven right.

I personally know only one world class visionary, Bill Kauth, and he has said to me: "The situation is far too dire for pessimism."

He's working on building small sustainable communities of like minded people who are committed to very high standards of responsibility and accountability. There is no evidence that humankind has the will to be responsible, and so much of the third world is just now tasting the gluttony that we fatties have known for generations. They will not go back. (voluntarily) The human condition is not on an upswing.

The denial of science as a point of political conformity was illustrated in this new PEW poll. I get no hope from those numbers between the science deniers and the rest of us.

My new favorite bumper sticker is: I'm feeling so much better
since I gave up all hope.

[Edited on 1-4-2014 by vgabndo]


For a moment.....let's assume the polar ice cap is melting and soon there will be a rise in sea levels that will inundate all mankind who dwell on the coasts.....worldwide.
If Al's timeline was off.....when will it all happen?
No need to be exact like Al was....just a wild guess will do.
Surely all the scientists in the world who say it's happening have a clue?

And then what do you propose the world does about this phenom?

Osprey - 1-4-2014 at 08:42 AM

Google up Dubai on G. Earth and take a long look at the palm islands and The World Project. Then ask yourself if the Arabs have enough money to get the best engineering data/reports/projections. Then find the sheiks who are financing those mega projects and tell them STOP ALL THIS YOU FOOLS!

DaliDali - 1-4-2014 at 09:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Osprey
Google up Dubai on G. Earth and take a long look at the palm islands and The World Project. Then ask yourself if the Arabs have enough money to get the best engineering data/reports/projections. Then find the sheiks who are financing those mega projects and tell them STOP ALL THIS YOU FOOLS!


Everyday I stroll down to the launch ramp in my part of the world, measure the water height with my EXACTOMETER measuring devise and note the changes from year to year....month to month.

Sure enough, the water levels change.....full and new moon higher.....not so much quarter/half moon.

What will I do about it?.....take another stroll to the ramp, and again, with my EXACTOMETER measuring device.....do it all again in the hopes that Al was right after all.

Will stranded ship affect Baja tourism?

durrelllrobert - 1-4-2014 at 09:18 AM

:bounce:
This whole tread belongs in the OT section. As much Baja related as the ship stuck in the ice at Antarctica

DaliDali - 1-4-2014 at 10:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by durrelllrobert
:bounce:
This whole tread belongs in the OT section. As much Baja related as the ship stuck in the ice at Antarctica


Fact checker says:.....the ENTIRE coastline of BAJA is surrounded by ocean waters subject to inundation according to Al.

The ENTIRE population of BAJA coastal waters, will be directly affected by the impending rise of the sea.

Public service announcement section instead?

[Edited on 1-4-2014 by DaliDali]

Fake Data—How the Hockey Stick Graph Was Contrived

durrelllrobert - 1-4-2014 at 10:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by vgabndo
Cypress says:

"Monoloco, Ridicule is a cheap and easy plow, but the facts are there. Just go online and research it. Look for the "hockey stick" graph controversy pertaining to man made climate change."

Here is the "hockey stick" graph updated to 2012 to the best of the knowledge of the best climate scientists on the planet.



This is from the documentary I linked earlier and from a presentation at an international climate conference.

Those links also show see-it-with-your-own-eyes evidence of the loss of glacial ice in very recent time. It appears that Al Gores predictions of the melt down are FAR more accurate than the predictions of folks like you who claim that nothing is happening.

The evidence for CO2 levels "hockysticking" is taken from the studies of the atmosphere captured in bubbles in 800,000 year old and younger ice. Clearly CO2 levels have gone up and down over the last eight tenths of a million years, but now those levels are screaming up toward twice what they have ever been before.

Many climate change deniers are also Young Earth Creationists, do you also hold a belief in that myth Cypress? That would explain a lot.

Here's a test: True or false, St. Nicolas (Santa Claus) was a never married, non-white, religious fanatic who, by the rules of his order, starved himself SKINNY as part of his cult practices.

If you answer: True. I hold out some hope for you. (wry smile)


nov79.com/gbwm/trees.html‎



The original authors used tree ring measurements as a "proxy" indication of temperature. Usually, tree ring width indicates other things which influence growth besides temperature, but in this case the trees were located in the Urals of northern Russia, where temperature is assumed to be the limiting factor of growth. The fact that the line was straight for a thousand years shows that the tree rings being measured were not a suitable indicator of anything.

BajaRat - 1-4-2014 at 10:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by durrelllrobert
:bounce:
This whole tread belongs in the OT section. As much Baja related as the ship stuck in the ice at Antarctica



Unfortunately I am forced to be in the camp that has observed man at the helm during this planets last 150 years of destruction. I'm 100% certain its not evil Monarch butterflies or pesky Polar bears behind the problem. Greed, perceived inalienable rights, Religious entitlement and corporate profits are the undeniable culprits. They are driving the propaganda that " we as humans aren't hurting anything " in order to carry on with their abuses.

Many people bring up Al Gore as an excuse because some of his info was debatable, personally I don't give a rats a$$ about him or his political standing.Debating his stance is easy.


Any one want to debate the impact of clear cutting forests, damming rivers, oil spills, over fishing, gill and long line nets, aquifer depletion and pollution, oh and yes atmospheric pollution. And now for the cherry on top,
***ashima, potentially the worst disaster the Pacific and this planet have ever seen.

It's a sad state of affairs when humanity cant take responsibility for the hell they have created on earth
:barf:

Our children's children will curse our generations for our arrogance and lack of compassion for the other inhabitants of our once fair planet. :(

DaliDali - 1-4-2014 at 10:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BajaRat
Quote:
Originally posted by durrelllrobert
:bounce:
This whole tread belongs in the OT section. As much Baja related as the ship stuck in the ice at Antarctica



Unfortunately I am forced to be in the camp that has observed man at the helm during this planets last 150 years of destruction. I'm 100% certain its not evil Monarch butterflies or pesky Polar bears behind the problem. Greed, perceived inalienable rights, Religious entitlement and corporate profits are the undeniable culprits. They are driving the propaganda that " we as humans aren't hurting anything " in order to carry on with their abuses.

Many people bring up Al Gore as an excuse because some of his info was debatable, personally I don't give a rats a$$ about him or his political standing.Debating his stance is easy.


Any one want to debate the impact of clear cutting forests, damming rivers, oil spills, over fishing, gill and long line nets, aquifer depletion and pollution, oh and yes atmospheric pollution. And now for the cherry on top,
***ashima, potentially the worst disaster the Pacific and this planet have ever seen.

It's a sad state of affairs when humanity cant take responsibility for the hell they have created on earth
:barf:

Our children's children will curse our generations for our arrogance and lack of compassion for the other inhabitants of our once fair planet. :(


Ok let's take responsibility for it all..

Now....what is YOUR proposals to rid the earth of all our man-made scourges?

Really....I want to hear the solutions YOU propose.

And if you can get the USA to go along with those "fix it" proposals, what is YOUR suggestion on how to get other emerging economies worldwide (China/India/Indonesia/SE Asia/Africa/MEXICO) to sign on?

Cypress - 1-4-2014 at 11:22 AM

The Carbon Dioxide in the upper atmosphere is like a brick wall, it supposedly prevents the greenhouse gases from escaping. The wall blocks just as much if it is one brick thick as it does if it's 20 bricks thick. So we've got to reduce the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to zero? Does anyone actually think that is possible?:?:

OK, I agree it's all man made...

durrelllrobert - 1-4-2014 at 12:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BajaRat

Unfortunately I am forced to be in the camp that has observed man at the helm during this planets last 150 years of destruction. I'm 100% certain its not evil Monarch butterflies or pesky Polar bears behind the problem. Greed, perceived inalienable rights, Religious entitlement and corporate profits are the undeniable culprits. They are driving the propaganda that " we as humans aren't hurting anything " in order to carry on with their abuses.

Many people bring up Al Gore as an excuse because some of his info was debatable, personally I don't give a rats a$$ about him or his political standing.Debating his stance is easy.

Any one want to debate the impact of clear cutting forests, damming rivers, oil spills, over fishing, gill and long line nets, aquifer depletion and pollution, oh and yes atmospheric pollution. And now for the cherry on top,
***ashima, potentially the worst disaster the Pacific and this planet have ever seen.

It's a sad state of affairs when humanity cant take responsibility for the hell they have created on earth
:barf:

Our children's children will curse our generations for our arrogance and lack of compassion for the other inhabitants of our once fair planet. :(


...from this stand point:

How Much CO2 Does a Human Exhale?
Answer
Using arithmetic and extrapolation, we can determine how much CO2 or carbon dioxide a human exhale per day. An average resting adult excretes 200 ml per breath. So 200ml multiplied by 12 breaths per minute multiplied by 60 minutes multiplied by 24 nets 3456L per day. This values can be larger or smaller based on lifestyle, lung capacity, and breaths per minute.
What was world population in 1800?
Answer
635,000,000
and 635 million x 3456 liters of CO2/day = 22.225 billion liters and the oceans and forests together absorbed about 68% of that leaving about 7.112 billion liters of CO2/day released into the atmosphere

What was world population in 2010?
Answer
6.9 billion
and 6.9 billion x 3456 liters of CO2/day = 245.664 trillion liters of CO2/day and the oceans and forests together absorbed about 68% of that leaving about 93.732 trillion liters of CO2/day released into the atmosphere.

So, if we graph the difference between liters released in 1800 and 2010 (93.732 trillion - 7.112 billion = 86.620 trillion) it also looks like a hockey stick

[Edited on 1-4-2014 by durrelllrobert]

BajaRat - 1-4-2014 at 12:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DaliDali
Quote:
Originally posted by BajaRat
Quote:
Originally posted by durrelllrobert
:bounce:
This whole tread belongs in the OT section. As much Baja related as the ship stuck in the ice at Antarctica



Unfortunately I am forced to be in the camp that has observed man at the helm during this planets last 150 years of destruction. I'm 100% certain its not evil Monarch butterflies or pesky Polar bears behind the problem. Greed, perceived inalienable rights, Religious entitlement and corporate profits are the undeniable culprits. They are driving the propaganda that " we as humans aren't hurting anything " in order to carry on with their abuses.

Many people bring up Al Gore as an excuse because some of his info was debatable, personally I don't give a rats a$$ about him or his political standing.Debating his stance is easy.


Any one want to debate the impact of clear cutting forests, damming rivers, oil spills, over fishing, gill and long line nets, aquifer depletion and pollution, oh and yes atmospheric pollution. And now for the cherry on top,
***ashima, potentially the worst disaster the Pacific and this planet have ever seen.

It's a sad state of affairs when humanity cant take responsibility for the hell they have created on earth
:barf:

Our children's children will curse our generations for our arrogance and lack of compassion for the other inhabitants of our once fair planet. :(


Ok let's take responsibility for it all..

Now....what is YOUR proposals to rid the earth of all our man-made scourges?

Really....I want to hear the solutions YOU propose.

And if you can get the USA to go along with those "fix it" proposals, what is YOUR suggestion on how to get other emerging economies worldwide (China/India/Indonesia/SE Asia/Africa/MEXICO) to sign on?



Reduce your personal foot print. Boycott practices that do more harm than good. Do not support businesses, corporations, and governments that do not respect human beings let alone the other inhabitants of this planet.
As all of us can agree upon in some business models it's all about money, not taking in to consideration the overall affects our business practices have upon this planet is the defining difference.
My parents said after the war nobody was a N-zi. But the fact is they were occupying the Netherlands and stealing my parents food.
You can put lipstick on this pig but my family ain't kissin it.




:cool:

monoloco - 1-4-2014 at 01:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by durrelllrobert
Quote:
Originally posted by BajaRat

Unfortunately I am forced to be in the camp that has observed man at the helm during this planets last 150 years of destruction. I'm 100% certain its not evil Monarch butterflies or pesky Polar bears behind the problem. Greed, perceived inalienable rights, Religious entitlement and corporate profits are the undeniable culprits. They are driving the propaganda that " we as humans aren't hurting anything " in order to carry on with their abuses.

Many people bring up Al Gore as an excuse because some of his info was debatable, personally I don't give a rats a$$ about him or his political standing.Debating his stance is easy.

Any one want to debate the impact of clear cutting forests, damming rivers, oil spills, over fishing, gill and long line nets, aquifer depletion and pollution, oh and yes atmospheric pollution. And now for the cherry on top,
***ashima, potentially the worst disaster the Pacific and this planet have ever seen.

It's a sad state of affairs when humanity cant take responsibility for the hell they have created on earth
:barf:

Our children's children will curse our generations for our arrogance and lack of compassion for the other inhabitants of our once fair planet. :(


...from this stand point:

How Much CO2 Does a Human Exhale?
Answer
Using arithmetic and extrapolation, we can determine how much CO2 or carbon dioxide a human exhale per day. An average resting adult excretes 200 ml per breath. So 200ml multiplied by 12 breaths per minute multiplied by 60 minutes multiplied by 24 nets 3456L per day. This values can be larger or smaller based on lifestyle, lung capacity, and breaths per minute.
What was world population in 1800?
Answer
635,000,000
and 635 million x 3456 liters of CO2/day = 22.225 billion liters and the oceans and forests together absorbed about 68% of that leaving about 7.112 billion liters of CO2/day released into the atmosphere

What was world population in 2010?
Answer
6.9 billion
and 6.9 billion x 3456 liters of CO2/day = 245.664 trillion liters of CO2/day and the oceans and forests together absorbed about 68% of that leaving about 93.732 trillion liters of CO2/day released into the atmosphere.

So, if we graph the difference between liters released in 1800 and 2010 (93.732 trillion - 7.112 billion = 86.620 trillion) it also looks like a hockey stick

[Edited on 1-4-2014 by durrelllrobert]
All scientific data from observation and experimentation consistently shows that when a specie's population is no longer in balance with it's environment a die off will occur, there is no reason to believe that this doesn't apply to humans as well. Therein lies the probable solution, considering the political realities. The only thing in doubt is the timeline.

DaliDali - 1-4-2014 at 02:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BajaRat
Quote:
Originally posted by DaliDali
Quote:
Originally posted by BajaRat
Quote:
Originally posted by durrelllrobert
:bounce:
This whole tread belongs in the OT section. As much Baja related as the ship stuck in the ice at Antarctica



Unfortunately I am forced to be in the camp that has observed man at the helm during this planets last 150 years of destruction. I'm 100% certain its not evil Monarch butterflies or pesky Polar bears behind the problem. Greed, perceived inalienable rights, Religious entitlement and corporate profits are the undeniable culprits. They are driving the propaganda that " we as humans aren't hurting anything " in order to carry on with their abuses.

Many people bring up Al Gore as an excuse because some of his info was debatable, personally I don't give a rats a$$ about him or his political standing.Debating his stance is easy.


Any one want to debate the impact of clear cutting forests, damming rivers, oil spills, over fishing, gill and long line nets, aquifer depletion and pollution, oh and yes atmospheric pollution. And now for the cherry on top,
***ashima, potentially the worst disaster the Pacific and this planet have ever seen.

It's a sad state of affairs when humanity cant take responsibility for the hell they have created on earth
:barf:

Our children's children will curse our generations for our arrogance and lack of compassion for the other inhabitants of our once fair planet. :(


Ok let's take responsibility for it all..

Now....what is YOUR proposals to rid the earth of all our man-made scourges?

Really....I want to hear the solutions YOU propose.

And if you can get the USA to go along with those "fix it" proposals, what is YOUR suggestion on how to get other emerging economies worldwide (China/India/Indonesia/SE Asia/Africa/MEXICO) to sign on?



Reduce your personal foot print. Boycott practices that do more harm than good. Do not support businesses, corporations, and governments that do not respect human beings let alone the other inhabitants of this planet.
As all of us can agree upon in some business models it's all about money, not taking in to consideration the overall affects our business practices have upon this planet is the defining difference.
My parents said after the war nobody was a N-zi. But the fact is they were occupying the Netherlands and stealing my parents food.
You can put lipstick on this pig but my family ain't kissin it.

:cool:


As a part time or full time resident of Mexico...will you boycott Pemex because they supply diesel fuel to the diesel powered generators in San Carlos Baja?
Will you also boycott the electricity that courses through your electric lines because they were begotten with diesel fuel?

Are you personally totally "off the grid" and use zero fossil fuels in your daily life?

Will you boycott Mexico because they use practices that are harmful to the people living there? IE diesel fuel and gasoline. Open burning of refuse and non existent vehicle smog requirements in the majority of the country?

Will you boycott Telmex because the owner happens to be one of the richest men on earth and through his various enterprises, creates more pollutants than untold numbers of individuals?

Will you boycott any and all tiendas that put your groceries in a plastic bags?

Do you boycott MX highway 1 near Santa Rosalia because of the mining activities there, that put untold pollutants into the Sea? And further take that to boycotting of copper, in any and all of your household plumbing?

Will you boycott SCT because they allow the use of asphalt paving materials when repairing the roadways?

Do you personally compost all your human waste products so they do not enter the soil and possibly make their way to any water table?

Indeed it is all about the money and you want as much as you can lay your hands on legally. All of us do.
Do we then boycott ourselves and deny ourselves the lifestyle that money can bring us?.....because were greedy, self centered infidels that pollute the air and the water with our personal daily activities?

So in a perfect USA and a perfect Mexico....pollution free or greatly reduced, to "stave off" the imminent rising of sea level, what do you propose to tell the emerging nations on how to run their particular countries, based on their own needs, financial constraints and technological expertise?

Since global warming is indeed global....or perceived to be anyway, if North America is "clean", how would that square up with the rest of the world being "dirty"?
Would not those airborne pollutants make their way across the oceans and spread worldwide?.

Does there exist a invisible "curtain" over North America that would interdict the entrance of air borne pollutants from entering our airspace?

Everyone who is willing and able, should practice environmentally friendly daily activities as best as possible, no doubt.

It's my contention that unless the rest of the world follows along with potentially devastating economical regulations that would be necessary to significantly reduce or eliminate air borne pollutants, were all blowing smoke up the stack.

Or....earth has a finite life and is doomed to melting off into the tropospheric layer, no matter what humankind does or does not do?

Osprey - 1-4-2014 at 07:36 PM

Dali and Dali and Dali, I'm putting your last post on the global thing down as contender for "Least thought out, relevant, germane and properly crafted reply to any post/thread during the coming year".

I'm sure the standard won't stay -- we have a whole year to just babble on.

Win, lose or draw you can be glad you got in early.

Skipjack Joe - 1-5-2014 at 04:30 AM

It is most reasonable to think that the decline of the baitfish is due to overfishing. Much more so than environmental changes.

Cypress - 1-5-2014 at 05:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
It is most reasonable to think that the decline of the baitfish is due to overfishing. Much more so than environmental changes.


Agree!! Over fishing by the commercial net boats.

Cardon Man - 1-5-2014 at 07:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BajaRat

Greed, perceived inalienable rights, Religious entitlement and corporate profits are the undeniable culprits. They are driving the propaganda that " we as humans aren't hurting anything " in order to carry on with their abuses.



That sums it up nicely. The last sentence speaks volumes. It explains why so many people simply don't care. It's also why it's nearly impossible to raise any concern for the environment without the discussion devolving into a thoughtless shouting match based on the increasingly irrelevant left/right paradigm of US politics.

docvandijk - 1-5-2014 at 08:19 PM

Two groups of thought, both concerned over the depletion of Mexican baitfish stocks, have collided in finger pointing blame rather than promoting any immediate plan to remedy the immediate situation.

Long term green living may have effects over the long term, but won't prevent further depletion by over-harvesting during a time of shortage of bait stock. This fishery is heading toward a tipping point.

Cetainly temperature has a lot to do with bait production and harvest off the West Coast but we don't have a thermostat we can set. We can reduce harvest to maintain a strong brewd stock.

Somehow, I doubt the reporting of Mexican catches have been accurately reported over the years as the US biomass has remained relatively constant over the same period. The management of Mexico's fisheries is up to Mexico. Unfortunately, the Fisheries Department in Mexico City has a long, long tradition of corruption and local oversight has never been sufficient or even enabled to take action against illegal fishing.

Mexico does have a new awareness of Ecology, as in Eco-Tourism

willardguy - 1-5-2014 at 08:25 PM

you know, its hard to take you serious when you say things like "brewd stock" :lol:

Nothing Much Changes

docvandijk - 1-5-2014 at 10:13 PM

Hey Ultra-Jerk: This forum has far more resident a-holes than are really necessary. Every item is a source of controversy among you feuding jerks. You should tie a pork chop aroumd your neck so the dog will pay a little more attention to you. Peace, Love and Tacos my ass. b-tch, moan and demean. Try to do a little something positive if you have it in you.
In the meantime, I'm finding the door out of this cesspool.

willardguy - 1-5-2014 at 10:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by docvandijk
Hey Ultra-Jerk: This forum has far more resident a-holes than are really necessary. Every item is a source of controversy among you feuding jerks. You should tie a pork chop aroumd your neck so the dog will pay a little more attention to you. Peace, Love and Tacos my burro. b-tch, moan and demean. Try to do a little something positive if you have it in you.
In the meantime, I'm finding the door out of this cesspool.
glad I caught ya on a good day!:yes:

BajaLuna - 1-6-2014 at 11:36 AM

Our species, as grand as we are, is the only one that destroys it's own environment. I can't always control what corporations do, I can't control what countries do including my own, I can't control what the naysayers do, I can only do what I can do by lessening my own carbon footprint and being a good earth steward.

I don't think anyone (except greedy corporations) wants to see forests bulldozed down that sustain us and where people hunt or go to be close to nature, I don't think anyone wants to see toxins dumped in our oceans where living beings are and where we eat from, I don't think anyone wants to see the rain forests cut down where their secrets may contain the cures for cancer and other diseases, or villages destroyed because of it, or tampering with the atmospheric balances, I don't think anyone wants mega corporations to get away with their abuses. We all have to live on this little planet and future generations too, and in the grand scheme of things, it's about respect for what sustains us and every little bit counts. I can only do my part, and take pride in at least I'm trying to make the world a better place and hope that I leave the planet better for my grandchildren!

Whether global warming is real or not, we are destroying the planet and we cant expect it to keep sustaining us without some action/change on our part.

It starts with trying to change one thing in our daily living, just one thing. Seems like a good new year's resolution to me!! This year we hope to install a rain catch system at our place in the PNW!

The real question is...What one little thing are YOU going to change this year? Heck we can debate global warning till the cows come home, but does that reallllyyy change anything???

A food and water crisis is on the horizon, everyone needs to wake up!

Osprey - 1-6-2014 at 12:00 PM

Groovy Luna, most of the Baja peninsula is either desert or close to it. We are running out of water fast. Do you think the water you plan to catch, store and use from your new eco plan will help us down here? Will we get more water if you take less from the flow and stock where you live? Will thirsty people everywhere gain water from your ideas, your investment in the green?

Central America receives 22,000 cubic meters of water per person, per year from rain. Down here we get 7 inches of rain annually or about 450 CM per person. Do you have a plan for us or is your plan to say "Hey, be careful out there?".

[Edited on 1-6-2014 by Osprey]

BajaLuna - 1-6-2014 at 12:56 PM

I don't know if by putting a rain catch system in place it will give anyone more water, but I hope that it does have a trickle down effect!

We did adopt some new practices while at our house in Baja a few weeks ago, knowing that water is an issue there and on the planet in general. And I hope by doing that it has a trickle down effect too! We limited the time on showers, kept a bucket full of water to rinse sandy feet instead of running the hose, filled one sink to wash dishes and filled the other one to rinse, collected water in dish pans when we rinsed produce and then used that to water plants outside, and we only watered the garden in the early morning hours to minimize evaporation. And I'm certainly open to ideas from others on ways to conserve!

So yeah, thanks for asking....I DO have a plan for doing my part for Baja, to be conscious of what I use! I hope it helps! Every little bit adds up!

Osprey - 1-6-2014 at 01:46 PM

It is obvious you are a confirmed and dedicated conservationist and I hope you'll spend more time down here where we really need you guys. My wife and I use twice the water that falls from the sky --- it costs us about $5 bucks a month for 70 CM of water. We don't really feel bad about that because the farms that grow organic tomatoes (the ones green people adore) are using 650,000 gallons of water per hectare per season. So we can't stop them and it makes no sense for us to conserve (given the cost/use/consequence).

You have my permission to blow things up to make a statement but don't hurt anybody.

[Edited on 1-6-2014 by Osprey]

wessongroup - 1-6-2014 at 08:42 PM

Here's an interesting approach, on the topic of "climate change"



It’s Time to Stop Portraying Climate Change as a ‘Debate’

The science forum on reddit, the self-described “front page of the Internet,” is now a climate change denial-free zone — which means it’s now a paradise.

OK, that might be overstating things. But the atmosphere of the science subreddit has improved remarkably since the moderators started cracking down. According to one of the forum’s moderators, nothing — not evolution, not vaccines — drew the kind of vitriol and ill-informed soliloquies as climate change:

Some issues, however, are particularly contentious. While evolution and vaccines do have their detractors, no topic consistently evokes such rude, uninformed, and outspoken opinions as climate change.

Instead of the reasoned and civil conversations that arise in most threads, when it came to climate change the comment sections became a battleground. Rather than making thoughtful arguments based on peer-reviewed science to refute man-made climate change, contrarians immediately resorted to aggressive behaviors. On one side, deniers accused any of the hard-working scientists whose research supported and furthered our understanding of man-made climate change of being bought by “Big Green.” On the other side, deniers were frequently insulted and accused of being paid to comment on reddit by “Big Oil.”

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/its-time-to-stop-portraying-clim...

Skipjack Joe - 1-6-2014 at 10:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by wessongroup

It’s Time to Stop Portraying Climate Change as a ‘Debate’



Why stop it? It keeps from anything being done. Goal met.

wessongroup - 1-7-2014 at 12:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Quote:
Originally posted by wessongroup

It’s Time to Stop Portraying Climate Change as a ‘Debate’



Why stop it? It keeps from anything being done. Goal met.


Funny how that works ... in the "House" and/or "Senate" too ... on most topics :biggrin:

Think something along these lines was used to "quite" things down a bit ... just a while back :)

willful stupidity

mtgoat666 - 1-7-2014 at 10:20 AM

willful stupidity. yes, they can!

at night i do not believe in the sun because it's not there.

Cypress - 1-7-2014 at 11:44 AM

Anthropogenic Global Warming as not been proven. Scientist disagree. So we're gonna let comedians decide the issue? Wonder what they think about net boats, etc.?

weebray - 1-7-2014 at 11:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DaliDali
I can say without equivocation that there a not near as many "bait balls" up and down the SOC now, as I have seen in years past.

The Conception bay area used to be rife will bait balls, now whenever I pass by, hardly any are seen.
Same thing in my local fishing area Loreto.....there were always balls of bait....all over. Inshore, offshore......in-between shores.
Now in the last couple of years, even the sardines are absent from the harbor area, when before, with one to two tosses of a net, a tank full could be had.
Now it's scratch for a few wayward ones, a jurelito now and again and old Tecate bottles.


I mentioned this on the morning net here in La Paz. The editor of "Baja Insider" admonished me saying that over the last couple of years there has been a huge increase in "bait balls" here in the La Paz area. He demanded proof of a decline.

wessongroup - 1-7-2014 at 12:52 PM

If one wishes to actually "see" and "read" the science on this topic and many others ... both pro and con ... removed from "political fog" which surrounds this issue and many others

http://www.pnas.org

"Scientist disagree" ... That is normal in science, however, it doesn't change "findings", rather the "conclusions" reached

When Science becomes "political" .... something is lost in the discussion .. in most cases IMHO

This issue is about one thing ... the sustainability of the human species in their environment, at our current "life style" based on utilization of natural resources and the resulting "waste stream" from same and those impacts on the environment which affords us a way to "make a living"

We as a species do "impact" our environmental "niche" ... as do all animal species ... we just tend to have greater impact, in most cases

Check China for some really good examples ... along with a few other countries which do not have environmental regulations ... and what results

A very hard balance, maintaining our environment to insure sustainability of the human species .... and making a "profit" .. when "profits" have NO caps ...

I'll stick with science to solve our problems ... not "profits"

[Edited on 1-7-2014 by wessongroup]

monoloco - 1-7-2014 at 01:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cypress
Anthropogenic Global Warming as not been proven. Scientist disagree. So we're gonna let comedians decide the issue? Wonder what they think about net boats, etc.?
Well, it couldn't be any worse than letting politicians and radio/TV pundits decide.

wessongroup - 1-7-2014 at 10:21 PM

Or .......
Quote:
Originally posted by wessongroup
As to drought ... and the distribution of Colorado River water

"Feds Slash Colorado River Release to Historic Lows"

From a National Geo piece ... it's interactive ... 1999 > 2013

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/08/130816-color...

PUBLISHED AUGUST 16, 2013

"It's as if a giant sucked up an astonishing amount of water with a straw. Some 8.23 million acre-feet of water is supposed to flow each year into Lake Mead from Lake Powell to serve Nevada, Arizona, California, and Mexico, per long-standing interstate and international agreements. But the past 14 years have been tough."

[Edited on 1-8-2014 by wessongroup]


Gee, wonder if a change in salinity would have any impact on the Gulf of California :):)

[Edited on 1-8-2014 by wessongroup]

mtgoat666 - 1-7-2014 at 10:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Osprey
Costs us about $5 bucks a month for 70 CM of water. We don't really feel bad about that because the farms that grow organic tomatoes (the ones green people adore) are using 650,000 gallons of water per hectare per season. So we can't stop them and it makes no sense for us to conserve (given the cost/use/consequence).


If everybody thought that way we would all be flocked.
Think global, act local.

BajaLuna - 1-8-2014 at 12:22 AM

Being an organic hobby farmer, I am scratching my head as to how or where you come up with growing organic food uses so much more water, quite the contrary Osprey! Organic farming has proven to use less energy and water, due to sustainable farming methods, crop rotation, and composting which improves the soil which in turn retains more moisture in the soil.
Countries with problems of drought who have switched to organic farming have not only better crop yield but use less water.

Are you saying that crop rotation and composting, which are the core of organic farming practices, cause farmers to use MORE water? Care to explain your position on this?

I know plenty of non-greenies who adore and eat organic, just for the health of it! You don't have to be a greenie, tree-hugger, or a conservationist to know that growing naturally WITH nature instead of against it and eating organic just makes sense! And dang it all anyways....those organic grown tomatoes sure taste like tomatoes should taste, imagine that! OH the horror!!!

Mtgoat666, sheesh it's always the few who do for the many, eh!

Osprey - 1-8-2014 at 07:34 AM

Luna, it's a very common thing on this board when some readers/members read more into the words than were intended. Bob says "I hate Popsicles" sometimes translates into "Nobody should eat popsicles", Popsicles are bad for you, you're a dummy if you have eaten one, you're stupid to even think about it...ya da, ya da....."

Clearly I should have made my point about water use and local farming and left out the word organic. The point was and is, we get 7 inches of water a year in this southern state and we are using more and more each second --- the aquifers can never recharge -- a huge sealed pool under Ciudad Constitucion can NEVER be recharged and at times the farmers use the water at the rate of a century per month. You advise me to save a few cups anyway, when and where I can and I see that as futile.

I don't want to do what you do. I hope you can continue and do more and feel great about it. We need all the conservationists we can get and the more active the better.

Luna, I'm not kiddin'

Osprey - 1-8-2014 at 08:10 AM

We are really, really using more water than we have on hand.

[Edited on 1-8-2014 by Osprey]

real desert.jpg - 32kB

Cardon Man - 1-8-2014 at 08:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cypress
Anthropogenic Global Warming as not been proven. Scientist disagree. So we're gonna let comedians decide the issue? Wonder what they think about net boats, etc.?


Sorry Cypress but you are laboring under a false assumption. Overwhelmingly, scientist do not disagree.

watizname - 1-8-2014 at 10:40 AM

When the smog from China starts blowing across the Pacific, it won't make any difference at all what conservation methods WE have adopted. :(:(

weebray - 1-8-2014 at 11:28 AM

Many road trips ago we came across a RIVER in San Juan de la Costa. I didn't think much about it (shame on me) until last year. On another "poking around" road trip near Bonfil we came upon a huge well site with numerous huge electric water pumps running full tilt boogie - then another - then another. Finally, our curiosity peaked, we wandered in and inquired. Turns out this is the source of the river in San Juan de la Costa. When we got home we eventually had some questions which we still have not answers to. To whit: What impact does this fertilizer production mine have on a very precious water table/resource? How much does the mine pay for this precious resource? Does the mine pay the normal commercial rate for electricity? Is the mine doing anything to minimize the use of water? Is this turning of water into fertilizer for profit doing anything positive for the citizens of BCS? Basically WTF is going on here?

willardguy - 1-8-2014 at 11:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by watizname
When the smog from China starts blowing across the Pacific, it won't make any difference at all what conservation methods WE have adopted. :(:(
payback for the smog WE sent them in the 50's?:yes: