Fin words, bright waters
Well, blow me down - who'd a thought it?
The very day after a study damns all of the world's big fishing countries for failing to meet goals on responsible fishing that they've signed up to, along comes the European Commission with a proposal aimed at making its shark fisheries, at least, clean and above board.
The timing (although purely accidental) is almost poetic.
Demonised by Hollywood, vulnerable because of their slow reproduction, and with only their dorsal fins prized as food, sharks are not most people's ideas of special, beautiful creatures whose salvation should dog our conscience daily.
Demonised by environmental groups, vulnerable to abuse because its structure virtually ensures governments will annually scrabble over quotas like dogs over a bone, and with virtually nothing except its scientific advice prized as worthwhile, the Common Fisheries Policy is not most people's idea of an effective way to regulate this most independent-minded of industries.
But sometimes, pairings that look unpromising on paper can surprise you; and though lots of details remain to be filled in, the European Commission's proposals could potentially bring real change.
That change is badly needed, in Europe and elsewhere, is illustrated by a study just published by some academics based at the University of British Columbia and the environmental group WWF. For the shorter version, published in the journal Nature, you'll need a subscription, but WWF's much longer take on it is open to all.
What these specialists have done is to analyse how various countries regulate their fishing industries, and then see how well they match up against the UN's Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.
Adopted just over 12 years ago, this voluntary agreement says countries should regulate fishing according to the precautionary principle, preserve stocks for future generations, look after habitat, control vessels flying their flags, and so on and so on - not a bad basic recipe book, in fact, for managing fisheries sustainably.
So how do the regimes run by the 53 countries accounting for 96% of the global catch match up against this recipe book?
Not terribly well, is the conclusion; not a single one merits more than a 60% mark, according to the assessors.
The best performers include Norway, the US, Canada and Australia, while North Korea, Myanmar, Angola and Nigeria bring up the rear, each with a score less than 20%.
One of the most interesting findings is that countries' scores correlate very nicely - almost linearly, in fact - with their performance on indicators of governance, such as the World Bank Governance Indicators or the corruption index compiled by Transparency International.
It's not surprising; but it's a salutary reminder that without the good rule of law it's very, very difficult to conserve anything with a monetary value.
So where are the best countries falling down?
The authors conclude there are very few that adequately constrain the size of their fleet - and historically ships in the water means fish coming out of it, no matter what the regulations - and that most, including the EU nations, do too little to reduce bycatch, the accidental (and sometimes "accidental on purpose") snaring of one species while trying to catch another.
You could conclude from this, of course, that the Code of Conduct must be a ridiculously ambitious document, if not a single country is meeting its aims.
To which the answer could be: but all these governments signed up to it, so obviously they thought it worthwhile and achievable.
In the real world, of course, the politics of fishing can obscure the best of aims.
So by far the most tantalising phrase in the commission's shark proposals is that the EU would "establish catch limits for stocks in conformity with the advice provided by ICES (the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea) and by the relevant RFMOs (Regional Fisheries Management Organisations)".
If that is interpreted strictly, it would mean countries sticking to advice they routinely ignore now when it comes to other species - as evidenced, for example, by the recent EU-backed decision to keep the Mediterranean bluefin tuna fishery open next year when scientists are virtually on their knees pleading for a suspension.
Let us be completely honest: globally, fisheries have struggled to adapt from a past where supplies could easily meet demand to a present where fishing technology and demand are so big that the commercial extinction of many species is a real possibility.
A number of countries, including diverse bedfellows such as Norway and Namibia, have shown that setting strict rules and enforcing them firmly is, in the long run, best for fishermen as well as for conservation.
But clearly even these top performers are a long way from achieving management that is, in terms they have signed up to, truly "responsible".
Let us see what teeth the European Commission's shark plan retains as it passes through the surgeries of the European parliament and the Council of Ministers; if European governments really do decide to look after some of the ugly ducklings of the ocean, conservationists will have more confidence that they're serious about implementing truly responsible practices across all of their fisheries.
I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~44~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Please join the 1,800+ people who have signed this petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/SharkS/petition.html
To: Hu Jintao president of the People's Republic of China.
Currently the Chinese people are eating a soup which is causing the biggest ecological disaster of our time. Supplying the demand for Shark's Fin soup involves the death of what best estimates say are between 50 and 150 million sharks a year. This is unsustainable and will inevitably lead to all sharks becoming extinct, many species are already over 90% eradicated.
The shark is the apex predator that keeps the whole ecology of the sea in balance and healthy. Nobody knows what the effects of their removal will be but is can be guaranteed to involve a lot of unwanted harmful outcomes.
This petition seeks the Chinese government to ban the catching, import and sale of sharks and all shark related products.
Complain about this comment
Good afternoon Richard, I'm sat at home, snowed in, so it's good to be able to read your beeblog (have I just coined a new internet phrase for BBC bloggers?), er... i mean working hard
Anyway, I have to strongly disagree on one part of your article - I think sharks are exceptionally beautiful creatures, perfectly adapted for their environment and, until recently, given they have been around for 300 million years, very successful. Even modern sharks have been around for over 100 million years.
This is also a difficult one for me, because I do have a preference for fish over meat or chicken, so on the one hand, I think we have to reduce the amount of fish we have to take from the sea, but on the other hand, I like my fish (although I have never had shark fin soup).
It's clear we are taking too much from the seas putting pressure on the whole ocean food chain and it is clear that we need to protect stocks, but the demands of a growing population means we have to feed people. I'm just not sure there are sufficient resources, food and energy, to allow 6b people and counting.
Complain about this comment
Cuckootoo.
It's a simple fact: unless we limit the fish taken from the sea, there will be no fish in the sea.
The other simple fact is that humans are now reproducing at an unsustainable rate; but this second fact does enable us to ride rough shod over the first.
Even the youngest child learns this; see the tale of 'the goose that laid golden eggs'.
I, too, eat fish in preference to meat. But soon I might have to stop. Search the web for "how to eat fish sustainably" and you'll come across lots of good advice.
Complain about this comment
@JRWoodman
I do agree with you, the more we take from the sea or any other resource for that matter, the less or none there is for the future. I do try to buy only line caught cod, pollack, Alaskan salmon, rainbow trout etc (I have a really good stuffed trout recipe involving artichokes and crushed almonds mmmmm)and I rarely buy tuna, but I think the problem is over fishing caused by over population and waste
We need to limit both
Complain about this comment
So the topic is sharks, or is it beaurocracy?
No matter. Let's see, the shark is considered by many to be a top predator, as is man. High up on this pyramid, I'm wondering if both shark and man don't have a long way to fall??
Aren't top predators ultimately dependent on the base of the food chain?
I've just finished reading two articles on ocean acidification and greenhouse extinction events. Since the shark lives in the oceans, at least for the most part, ocean acidfication and its cause, anthropogenic global warming, is probably going to affect them too.
The first article from "Nature" was by Ken Caldeira and Michael Wickett, and this article, written in 2003, is widely credited with coining the term 'ocean acidification'.[1]
The next article I read, just this morning, also from "Nature", is by James Zachos et al., and examines greenhouse warming and extinction events etc. throughout the Cenozoic, i.e., the last sixty-five million years. It was written in 2008, five years after the Caldeira article.[2]
I've referenced these articles at the bottom of this blog, but here I'd like to comment on my impressions rather than on the details.
Humility is what I see. When a person is granted the right to put a Ph.D. behind their name, it might be worthwhile to remember that this stands for doctor of philosophy.
I have always believed that art and science meet at a certain level, I think a high level. And that is a good thing, for truth is the goal of both art and science. Both are the result of an intense and unrequitted curiosity about the world we live in. And as I think curiosity is a form of love, both are also an expression of our innate fondness for the planet and the universe we inhabit. What could be more natural?
Back to humility!
Both articles are telling us, I think, that we don't understand yet, what exactly are the consequences of our inadvertant injection of carbon, largely in the form of carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere, and soon afterwards, into the oceans. Between the lines, or perhaps in the lines of these articles, but couched in scientific jargon, I see fear.
What is being described is a chaotic system, i.e., a complex non-linear one, subject to what one of our bloggers, 'JRWoodman', has described as 'the law of unintended consequences'. That would translate into scientific jargon as both positive and negative feedback loops. Some of these loops we understand a little, some not at all, and probably there are loops we aren't even aware of yet. That is the gist of the two "Nature" articles, as far as humility is concerned.
But I think we understand enough to be frightened to death, and what we need is really the courage to act in face of these environmental nightmares.
NASA is launching their 'orbiting carbon observatory' later this month, and a couple of their blogs are less jargon riddled, and I am referencing these below. Also a site from Europe on ocean acidification, and one from NOAA and Mauna Loa. For any who are willing and able to act.
PS: For converting from metric tons of carbon to metric tons of carbon dioxide, multiply by 44/12, i.e., 3.67. This is the ratio of the weights of the average carbon dioxide molecule (44) over that of the average carbon atom (12).
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/oco/news/oco-20090113.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/oco/mission/index.html
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Europe - ocean acidification:
http://oceanacidification.wordpress.com/2008/02/16/past-greenhouse-warming-provides-clues-to-what-the-future-may-hold/
Nature articles:
[1] Caldeira, Sep 25, 2003; vol. 425, pg. 365.
[2] Zachos, Jan 17, 2008, 2008; vol. 451, pgs. 279-283.
Complain about this comment
JRWoodman wrote:
Cuckootoo.
It's a simple fact: unless we limit the fish taken from the sea, there will be no fish in the sea.
The other simple fact is that humans are now reproducing at an unsustainable rate; but this second fact does enable us to ride rough shod over the first.
==============================
I agree with you on limits are needed to limit over fishing. As you have brought it up, I have a question for you: How would you limit human reproduction?.
It amazes me the amount of times I have heard someone suggest that, yet never have I heard them answer how they would implement such a scheme, let alone explain what it could mean to national demographics.
Complain about this comment
Nice blog Richard. Early last year, I was approached by a BBC team wanting to find some good sites in the Gulf of California (one of my old haunts) for filming wildlife. I told them of some spectacular seamounts where hammerhead shark are attracted in large numbers; an extraordinary and beautiful sight. They found nothing and locals told them that they have all gone. It is saddening to know that so many of these creatures have been hunted to near extinction, not because of ignorance, but because of the commercial rewards for shark finning (catching sharks for their fins, the rest is usually discarded) while the rest of the world seemingly looks away.
The shark problem is just the tip of the iceberg. Seamounts - underwater mountains of spectacular proportions - are being stripped of their extraordinary wildlife by fishing vessels from some of the countries that have made positive noises about banning shark finning. And yet, every time scientists carry out surveys of the less damaged seamounts, they discover previously undescribed species. Some seamount fish take several decades to reach maturity and trawling them amounts to strip mining; they may never recover. Sharks too are relatively slow to reproduce and their natural population growth cannot keep pace with the rate of exploitation.
In trying to protect the sea, we face the problem that most of it remains unexplored and poorly understood and all except the surface is unseen to the public. As budgets are reduced around the world, the number of research vessels is declining whereas the number of powerful deep sea trawlers increases from year to year. The UK only has two serviceable deep sea research vessels for example, and one of those is over 45 years old.
All of this is a good reason to applaud the action of the EU and we hope its Member States will ensure that its words become deeds. But we should not be complacent. We need to take a hard look at how the deep sea is to be protected and used in a sustainable way.
I like eating fish too. But when I do eat fish, I don't want to be part of a supply chain that can only be satisfied through illegal or unsustainable fishing. We need obligatory labelling to tell us where our fish comes from and more use of certification schemes like those of the Marine Stewardship Council; and stronger international institutions to ensure enforcement.
Complain about this comment
Think about it and you won't be amazed, Rustigjongens.
It's not for me to say how we limit or reduce population. But the fact that I can't (or won't) answer your question does not mean the problem does not exist, or that I shouldn't mention it.
The solution to overpopulation has to be arrived at by consensus. The simple fact is that if we, collectively, can't find a fair and humane way to limit our numbers to sustainable levels, then nature will find a way to reduce our numbers for us: and she will do it mercilessly. For nature, it's simply a balancing act to achieve equilibrium.
Complain about this comment
@Rustigjongens #6
I have no idea, but it does seem to me the root causes of most of the earths environmental problems come from the fact there are far too many people and far too much squandering of resources. For example I read the average family throws away 30 % of the food that it buys.
Complain about this comment
Surely we need unbiased information on this subject. The BBC has failed miserably to do this on any environmental subject. The truth is that no-one knows what the truth is.
There is a gap in the market for unbiased, non-judgemental, unemotional news reports of environmental news stories. I often hear people say they don’t know what the facts are surrounding the environment and especially global warming. I think that this points to a failure on the part of the state broadcaster to provide us with these facts.
BBC News is certainly trying to work with one hand tied behind its back while the rest of the corporation is pumping out propaganda about the environment. The most vulnerable group – children – seem to get the lion’s share of this propaganda, presumably as this is the path of least resistance and perhaps because there has been some pressure to get the message over to the new generation in an effort to save the planet in the long term.
Some of your bloggers have put the fishing problem down to population growth. Has the BBC identified any evidence of this link in its coverage? Perhaps I missed it? If the link is correct (and it makes common sense that it is), why do we not know more about it? Are there calls to curtail the growth of the global human population? If there are, I do not know anything about it (not from the BBC in any case).
There is a theory that early hunters would leave the skeleton of the animal they had recently slaughtered on display for a while so that fellow hunters would identify that particular species and, if possible, avoid hunting it. Perhaps they also had a system to avoid over fishing of certain species. This system could only work if each tribe was confident it had full control over its hunting and fishing territory. If such territories were shared then surely such a system would fall down.
Are efforts to limit fishing in shared waters doomed to failure? I personally fear so as I cannot see how self-imposed quotas could work if there is a suspicion that some other nations are over fishing and flouting their own quotas. It may be the case that shared fishing waters may need to be divided by borders, presumably based on extending territorial waters. The new borders could be designed so that there would still be some international waters (much reduced in area). These international waters could be left as sanctuaries where no fishing would be allowed (thus easy to police). I know this could take years of horse-trading, with land-locked countries perhaps being financially compensated, but once it was settled, nations would look after their own stocks (and I am sure they would, safe in the knowledge they are in control of their own watery borders) and there would be sanctuaries in every ocean.
The BBC is relying too much on United Nations and other institutions (all of them quangos) who have vested interests and have their own preconceived ideas. I would much prefer the BBC to cast the net wider (excuse the pun) and take on more sources for environmental stories. I also wish the BBC would not see itself as a propaganda machine when it comes to environmental matters. I think that there is a hunger for real unfettered facts in this subject and the BBC should be at the forefront of providing these facts. Sadly, at the moment it is just another voice in the confusion.
Complain about this comment
KennethM.
Surely it's not the BBC's role to act as a clearing house for scientific data and opinion, which is what you seem to be suggesting? If we're not going to accept government-funded research, who's 'facts' should we accept?
Over the years I have observed that there are people working for the BBC who hold extreme views at both ends of the environmental spectrum. As time has gone on I've also witnessed some individual's views changing; a classic example being David Attenborough.
As a person who is environmentally aware and has read up very widely on the subject -- I have not observed that the BBC as an organisation has any particular agenda on environmental issues. Ten years ago I was annoyed by how little time the BBC gave to these concerns, which to me seemed pressing. Today, it's changed; now it's the sceptics who find it annoying that the BBC appears to be giving ever-increasing exposure to environmental matters.
What frustrates me today is that even though scientific consensus is established about many environmental issues, the BBC still feels the need to wheel out the occasional odd ball 'denier' to create a 'balanced' debate -- when even government ministers are of the opinion we're long past the point of debate and we need to get down to some action.
Complain about this comment
@JRWoodman
It doesn't matter how many times alarmists state the debate is over, it is clearly not over.
When the latest "proof" that the Antarctic warming is based on bad science and was debunked within a week of it's release, the debate is not over.
When the Arctic has been shown to be warm and ice free on many occassions, the debate is not over.
When the number of scientists who "deny" AGW outnumbers the actual number of scientists who wrote the IPCC report, the debate is not over.
When a BBC reporter has to resort to splicing a tape together to convince people that Obama said the debate is over, the debate is not over.
There is a bias at the BBC, although I think Richard seems top be the only one who is at least trying to listen in the BBC.
I strongly believe that we need to protect the earth and I can think of other reasons to limiting emissions etc, but claiming we are responsible for changing the worlds climate is just ridiculous and irresponsible when millions die the world over for want of clean drinking water and a fraction of what is being spent on this fallacy could prevent the deaths.
Perhaps I'm wrong the debate is over, it's the indoctrination that needs to be stopped
Complain about this comment
Cuckootoo.
You wrote, "...claiming we are responsible for changing the worlds climate is just ridiculous..."
That was my view until around 1995.
However, today I don't understand on what basis you can say this. You're going against the weight of worldwide scientific opinion.
See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
But, please believe me: genuinely, I hope you're right -- and I'm wrong.
Complain about this comment
To greenNautilus:
Thanks for that first hand information from the Gulf of California (post # 7). First hand is always appreciated. Baja California is a former haunt of mine also.
To AGW doubters:
Let's at least not exaggerate. Here is a direct 'copy' from Wikipedia's "global warming":
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that most of the temperature increase since the mid-twentieth century is "very likely" due to the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.[2][1] Natural phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward.[3][4] These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science,[5] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
..."all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries." This is not a minor point!
And here is some data, on the release of antropogenic carbon and CO2, from Oakridge National Laboratory, for the period 1751 through 2005. Please click on the 'Digital Data, ASCII fixed format' or the 'Graphics' section.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.html
I am on the lookout for databases from other ogranizations, on historical CO2 and carbon releases by mankind, if anyone can help me, I'd appreciate it.
Like JRWoodman and many others, I have followed the environmental degradation of our planet for many years, and have read extensively on the subject for more years than I care to remember. The passage quoted above from Wikipedia is entirely consistent with what I have both seen and read myself.
Knowing which sources are reliable is important.
From the land of the Chinook wind.
Complain about this comment
@JRWoodman
"consensus" is not evidence and I think you will find there is now a larger "consensus" of scientists who do not accept AGW, plus there is a large body of evidence (and growing), to show that man is not responsible.
@manysummits
I accept CO2 emissions are growing and continue to grow and I accept man really needs to get it's act together on pollution (even if CO2 is not a pollution, unless you count an essential ingredient in photosynthesis is a pollutant).
Please read Jarowoski (and Becks) papers on CO2 pre-industrial times and please read my posts on arctic ice showing NOAA and the NYT archives here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/01/clearing_the_air.html
#59 and 60
Todate, I am not aware of any published paper that refutes Jarowoski and #59 & 60 clearly shows an ice free Arctic has happened before and as recent as the 20th Century
Complain about this comment
The other thing that concerns me is we simply do not know what experiments to "cure" global warming will do to our environment.
For example if we erect thousands of wind turbines around our coast (and they actually work!), what effect will that have on wind patterns, rain and snow etc inland? Will it lead to drier conditions? More rain?
I work in the construction industry and I know (I worked for the company that designed the new stands) that Manchester Uniteds stadium needed louvres installed around the ground to allow a breeze onto the grass, because the grass had stopped growing.
If we take the energy from the wind and disrupt wind patterns, what will happen?
Complain about this comment
To CuckooToo:
If I read you correctly, you agree that CO2 is rising, but you doubt two things:
1) That the rise in CO2 is manmade.
2) That the rise in CO2 is responsible for the reduction of the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean and with the documented thinning of sea ice in that same ocean.
The case for both is so strong from my viewpoint and that of many others, including the United Nations IPCC, NASA, NOAA etc., that I think our two viewpoints will have to remain worlds apart for the time being.
Perhaps it would be more profitable to look at what NASA is doing this month. On February 23, 2009, NASA is planning to launch the 'Orbiting Carbon Observatory'.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/oco/news/oco-20090113.html
I am assuming that this approach, and all it implies, is a prelude to concerted action to halt and then reverse the rise in CO2.
The link provided makes very good reading, for in addition to describing the mission, it provides a summary and overview of the CO2 problem.
Please think about it CuckooToo - we have probably become inadvertant terraformers, and we are trying to fix our mistakes.
As to wind farms etc., no doubt we will continue to learn, as we have always learned, by making mistake after mistake, realizing our errors, and going on.
Isn't that simply what we have done with the burning of fossil fuels, the clearing of forests, the damming of rivers, the overfishing of the oceans, etc...?
From Cow Town
Complain about this comment
If we do nothing and Cuckootoo is wrong then disaster follows.
If we do act and Cuckootoo is right we save on finite resources.
Isn't it a no-brainer as to what the correct thing to do is?
As it is, both logic and evidence is against Cuckootoo
Complain about this comment
@Manysummits
Of course I accept that recorded concentrations of CO2 are rising. My understanding, however, is this is not unusual.
Callender took over 90,000 measurements varying from 250 ppm to 550 ppm, but chose to state the average as 280 ppm by excluding measurements. An abstract of Becks paper is here:
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/003893.html
Sorry it's a blog but look at the graph and Becks paper is available in pdf format
CO2 appears to rise and fall. In 1818 CO2 was 480ppm, in 1880 270 ppm. There is a link to a spreadsheet so you can look at the data for yourself and see the varying levels of CO2
The NASA experiment is interesting and I look forward to the results coming through.
Complain about this comment
Only logic if you discount spending the money saved on projects that would make a real diffence such as providing clean water to millions of people worldwide who are dying for the sake of clean water
Complain about this comment
Cuckootoo wrote...
"...I think you will find there is now a larger "consensus" of scientists who do not accept AGW...".
Cuckootoo. I know I won't, because I haven't.
I read 'New Scientist' every week, which I believe gives a good overview of the latest findings in environmental research with relevance to anthropomorphic global warming. I have seen no evidence whatsoever to back up your statement.
With regards to CO2; to quote Wikipedia, "Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent than today, decreasing to 4–5 times during the Jurassic period and then maintained a slow decline until the industrial revolution...".
And... "Due to human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation, the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by about 35% since preindustrial times."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_the_Earth.27s_atmosphere]
That's evidence enough for me.
Complain about this comment
To CuckooToo:
You stated in post #19 that though you accepted CO2 levels were rising, you didn't think that was unusual. By that I take it you mean that natural fluctuations have occured in the past, without the intervention of mankind.
And you would be entirely correct.
What surprises me is that you seem to think that all those scientists who study the past for a living are somehow not aware of this?
Please think about that CuckooToo.
Proverbially a picture is worth 'ten thousand words', so I am sending along this link from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. In roaming the internet for CO2 and ocean acidification information these last few weeks, I am finding the NASA and JPL sites superb. Further, it would appear that NASA is assuming the lead in preparing for the reversal of CO2 levels on our planet, by providing the science to President Obama. Of course it is NASA and JPL who are launching the state of the art "Orbiting Carbon Observatory" this February 23, from Vandenburg Airforce Base.
Here is that link:
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/
Dr. James Hansen has sent a personal letter to Michelle and Barack Obama, outlining the magnitude of the global warming/ocean acidification problem. It is available on-line.
For those who don't know, James Hansen is currently head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and I am providing a Wikipedia link which outlines his credentials:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen
CuckooToo, at the risk of offending, you seem to be caught in an intellectual rut. May I first apologize if this does cause offence, but might I also recommend that you try something different?
At the top of my list would be Mark Bowen's book, "Thin Ice",(2005). Mark has a Ph.D in physics from one of the premiere academic institutes on the planet, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and is also a mountain climber, like me.
He travels repeatedly with Lonnie Thompson, perhaps the world expert on tropical and high mountain glaciers, to sites all around the world. In the book you are on the ground, so to speak, in the field, away from abstuse and perhaps confusing treatises on atmospheric gases and carbon cycles etc... And yet the science information provided is very high quality. If you can read this book, and still tell us all that the ice is not going, I will be well and truly amazed.
- From Calgary -
Complain about this comment
“What surprises me is that you seem to think that all those scientists who study the past for a living are somehow not aware of this?”
I think certain climate scientists choose to ignore the work of people like Jarowoski and Beck, which demonstrates that CO2 levels have been higher in the recent past and CO2 levels fluctuate naturally, unless they attack Jarowoski and Beck in blogs. I still haven't found any published paper debunking their work. If you know of any please let me know, because I would be prepared to read it.
“Proverbially a picture is worth 'ten thousand words'”
Nice picture, but again ignoring the work of Jarowoski and Beck
“Dr. James Hansen has sent a personal letter to Michelle and Barack Obama, outlining the magnitude of the global warming/ocean acidification problem.”
I am well aware of Hansen’s credentials and the fact that none of his alarmist predictions have come true. I am also aware that Hansen claims he was gagged by Bush, despite Hansen’s many appearances in interviews etc. I am aware that Hansen received a $250,000 prize from the Heinz foundation shortly before endorsing John Kerry, the husband of the woman who runs the Heinz Foundation. I am not saying the two are connected, I'm sure they aren't, but it is very rare for a public employee to endorse a political candidate.
“CuckooToo, at the risk of offending, you seem to be caught in an intellectual rut. May I first apologize if this does cause offence, but might I also recommend that you try something different?”
If I knew what an intellectual rut was I would be offended, so it’s good that I don’t ;)
I have read a few books on global warming on both sides of the fence, including Frazier’s and Calder’s, and I have been following the debate for a number of years. I will, however, try to find the book you suggest at my local library and read it as you suggest, because I am always open to the fact that I could be wrong.
Could I suggest that you visit climatedebatedaily for a look at both sides of the story? Some articles are nonsense from both sides of the fence, but I think you will find some useful comparisons between the true believers and the non-believers. Also, read Calder's book. All I am asking is try to have an open mind, as I am trying to do - I really do read the links that people post.
Complain about this comment
To CuckooToo:
I tried to Google Jarowski - and came up with a football player. Perhaps you could provide a direct link to one of his (and Becks) papers?
I looked quickly at "climate debate daily." What I saw was this:
On the side of the assenters, those who believe global warming is real, a threat, and anthropogenic, there were scientists from NASA, universitys etc. I understand these voices, and can read their papers, many of them peer reviewed, and open to the criticism such peer reviewed articles engender. Literally, their careers are on the line each time they publish.
On the side of the dissenters, there was innuendo, supposition, and ridicule, but not backed up by anything substantial, like the peer reviewed articles published in, say, "Nature", or "Science", or from The American Academy for the Advancement of Science, or from august journals such as the Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Science.
I expected to see this, but I am admittedly biased - biased in favor of truth and openness.
Send us your best shot CuckooToo - a direct link to a substantial refutation of anthropogenic global warming, by Jarowski and Beck, for example.
- On a chilly day in Calgary -
Complain about this comment
"All I am asking is try to have an open mind, as I am trying to do...".
So, Cuckootoo plays the "holier than thou" card!
I wonder, does your open mind extend to discussions on evolution; or to whether the Earth is flat? After all, there are still many people wanting to argue about those subjects.
This is about risk management. Surely there's a certain point where the evidence so stacks up that one has to decide to act -- particularly when so much is at stake?
Sure, I have an open mind: I think there's a 5% chance that you're right. But, of course, that means there's a 95% chance that global warming will result in a catastrophe for life on our planet -- unless we take steps to mitigate the effects.
Given this catastrophe which could result from ignoring the effects of AGW, I wonder Cuckootoo, are you prepared to take the risk of being wrong?
Complain about this comment
Jarowoski:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
Beck:
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/003818.html
Apologies for the links being to blogs, but you can't get pdf's past the moderators.
Your take on climatedebatedaily is interesting, because of the assenters, I see people like realclimate taking snipes at dissenters, although I do agree there is a lot of non-peer reviewed stuff on both sides of the fence.
I am also in favour of truth and openess, but I don't see it from the pro-AGW side. Perhaps our different take on these things is is interesting in itself - I don't believe in conspiracy theories such as Prince Phillip killing Diana or any of the other rubbish, but it's interesting that 2 people can read the sae material and come up with 2 different views
Try climateaudit, icecap and coscience for alternative views including links to published papers showing climate change is natural. Personally, I do try to read all the pro-views an links where I can
Complain about this comment
@JRWoodman
"So, Cuckootoo plays the "holier than thou" card!"
Apologies if that was the impression I was giving, it certainly wasn't the intention, but I do find that many AGW believers simply do not approach scepticism with an open mind. I like Richards blog because there appears to be a healthy discussion on these matters without the normal cat-calling of other blogs.
"I wonder, does your open mind extend to discussions on evolution; or to whether the Earth is flat?"
I like to think I would be open minded enough to listen to discussions on evolution. I certainly don't think that Darwin got it wrong, but I've never met anybody who was totalled convinced that evolution is incorrect.
And then we start to differ, because, whilst I accept that man does contribute to climate change through land use, etc. (many animals do contribute to climate change), I read the pro's and cons for and against AGW and it seems to me that global warming is natural. Spending the vast sums of money on something that we cannot change seems like folly to me.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I have not been back to this site for a few days and it seems like every article ends up with posts talking about AGW!!
CuckooToo vs Manysummits & JR Woodman.
I read from all your posts that we all seem to share a love of nature and the environment. That's probably why we come onto Richards’s blog.
I did my own deep dive (a relative term) into the science of AGW theory several years ago and was not convinced. The real epiphany for me was when Al Gore got going with his alarmism and then got the Nobel Prize. Also folks started talking about 'consensus' and ' the science is in'. I smelt a rat and was then convinced it was also a massive fraud and believe Al Gore will take a further prize of the biggest con-man in history.
Because of all this I now find it very hard to keep an open mind but do get to deep dive (remember, a relative term) occasionally on this debate: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807
Volume 37, Number 3 and the two ‘Articles’ are good bed time reading.
And, oh yes, about fish. I'm of the view that countries divide up the oceans and become responsible for their territories. Like giving ownership rights to land it tends to be better looked after. How that's achieved can wait for another day.
Complain about this comment
To CuckooToo:
Thanks for the links! I have looked quickly at both, and I will give them more time this weekend.
I checked on Dr. Jarowski's credentials with Wikipedia, and he certainly has credentials, and is who he says he is, from what I can see.
Your point about people being able to read the same material and come to different conclusions is an interesting one. Here is my take on this:
While at first glance true, upon reflection, I doubt very much that we have read the same material. I will give you my opinion on Dr. Jarowski's dissent soon, and I would hope you can tell me what you think about the book I recommended, Mark Bowen's "Thin Ice." That at least we will have in common.
However, this debate over global warming resembles two others in my memory, ones that I lived through as a geologist.
The first was in the 1960's - the debate over 'continental drift', now usually referred to as plate tectonics. There was considerable opposition to this theory then, and by some very distinguished earth scientists. Nevertheless, continental drift and plate tectonics are now so much accepted that they are one of the cornerstones of the science of both 'geology' - the study of the Earth, and of planetary science.
The second was the 'Alvarez et al' paper on meteorite impact at the K/T boundary (at the beginning of the 1980's), i.e., the terminal event of the Cretaceous period, and of the Mesozoic, the middle era of the Phanerozoic eon. This event caused the extinction of the dinosaurs, unless of course you believe that modern birds are their survivng descendants.
The meteorite impact theory was again hotly debated, and again there were distinguished scientists on both sides of the debate. But eventually, the impact site was found and documented and studied, and information confirming the basic premise came in from investigations and laboratories all over the world. The Apollo moon missions returned lunar rocks, etc..., and meteorite impact is now a cornerstone of all planetary science, and of geology.
The peer review process worked in both instances, exposing both the truth, as we think we know it, and the vagaries of human nature.
The two former theories now bear more directly on the current 'Earth-shaking' debate, i.e., rapid climate change - human induced.
For example, the terminal event of the Cretaceous - the meteorite impact, occurred at the same time as the flood basalt province known as the 'Deccan Traps', a 'large igneous province' (see Wikipedia - 'large igneous province').
These rare and very spectacular events release prodigious amounts of volcanic gases, principally CO2 and sulphur oxides, into the atmosphere, which are then absorbed by the oceans. They are related, at least in time (see 'large igneous province' - Wikipedia'), to mass extinction events, and are currently a leading edge of science. The mass extinction events related in time to these flood basalt events are being called 'Greenhouse Extinctions'.
Got to go to work - from Calgary.
PS: Another Freudian slip - my post #24, 'Natural' Academy of Sciences should read 'National' Academy of Sciences.
Complain about this comment
To manysummits
I will try to read Mark Bowen's "Thin Ice.", but please give me a little time before responding :)
With regards to continental drift and meteorites, I too remember reading about the stories. Of course, I was just a kid, but was still fascinated and I understand the controversy behind the ideas.
Whilst we are on ideas that have gained in popularity after being shown to be true, lets have a look at an idea that was very popular, but is, rightly, abhorrent to us now.
Eugenics
It's probably easier for me to quote direct from Wiki, so here goes:
"Eugenics was an international scientific, political and moral ideology and movement which was at its height in first half of the twentieth century and was largely abandoned with the end of World War II. The movement often pursued pseudoscientific notions of racial supremacy and purity"
"The movement, led by race scientists, financed by private philanthropies such as the Carnegie Institute and the Rockefeller Foundation and implemented by governments was practised in North America, Europe (particularly Nazi Germany), and Australia (among others)."
"The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883, drawing on the recent work of his cousin Charles Darwin. From its inception eugenics was supported by prominent people, including H. G. Wells, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, William Keith Kellogg, Margaret Sanger, Winston Churchill, and Sidney Webb. Its most infamous proponent and practitioner was however Adolf Hitler who praised and incorporated Eugenic ideas in Mein Kampf, and emulated Eugenic legislation for the sterilization of "defectives" that had been pioneered in the United States"
Clearly the above opinions were wrong, but to me AGW has echos of eugenics.
First we have:
"international scientific, political and moral ideology" - looking incredibly like the tactics used by the alarmists
followed by
"The movement, led by race scientists, financed by private philanthropies such as the Carnegie Institute and the Rockefeller Foundation" - speaks for itself
And then we have the list of prominent people who jump on the bandwagon.
Now I am not saying that the alarmists intentions are to emulate Hitler or that I believe we have the same situation or that AGW is a conspiracy, but you have to agree the similarities are there.
JMHO
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7890988.stm
Perhaps the BBC should have a word with the journalists that wrote this piece of propaganda (I note there is no name). He/she should listen a little more to Vicky Pope and tone down the apocalyptic warnings.
For Professor Chris Field to state the IPCC got it wrong in underestimating the rate of change, without backing it up with hard science, is fear-mongering not journalism
Complain about this comment
What really bugs people like me is the BBC can happily print articles like the above and parade Manns Hockey Stick in the news and in programmes like "Climate Wars", and yet they never print articles that show Mann got it wrong
Where was the follow up article or retraction when Mann was shown to have mixed up Spain and Africa and making the same mistakes he made in Mann et al 98 and 99, as confirmed by Wegman and NAS, thereby skewing his results?
Also interesting is Prof Field now appears to be claiming that the IPCC got it wrong, despite presumably agreeing to the wording of the chapter he co-authored, and Mauna Loa is incorrect by claiming CO2 levels are rising faster than expected, when Mauna Loa indicates a steady increase.
What happens with all these stories once they have died or been shown to be untrue? Do they get erased or do they go the way of "An Inconvenient Truth" and continue to be shown as gospel despite the errors confirmed by the judiciary?
Complain about this comment
I look forward to the BBC's headline "IPCC GOT it Wrong!" when they report on Kesten Green, J.Scott Armstrong and Willie Soon paper "Validity of Climate Change Forecasting for Public Policy Decision Making"
"Global mean temperatures were found to be remarkably stable over policy-relevant horizons. The benchmark forecast is that the global mean temperature for each year for the rest of this century will be within 0.5C of the 2008 figure. There is little room for improving the accuracy of forecasts from our benchmark model. In fact, it is questionable whether practical benefits could be gained by obtaining perfect forecasts. While the Hadley temperature data shown in Exhibit 2 shows an upwards drift over the last century or so, the longer series in Exhibit 1 shows that such trends can occur naturally over long periods before reversing.
Moreover there is some concern that the upward trend observed over the last century and half might be at least in part an artifact of measurement errors rather than a genuine global warming (McKitrick and Michaels 2007). Even if one puts these reservations aside, our analysis shows that errors from the benchmark forecasts would have been so small that they would not have been of concern to decision makers who relied on them."
If you want to read it for yourself it's a pdf over at icecap
Of course, I won't be holding my breath waiting to read the headline.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps the BBC are trying to be more balanced:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7892066.stm
The report tells us that the climate models are unable to model the Amazon areas and therefore are wrong
Complain about this comment
Will the BBC be reporting on the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City on March 8-10?
Speakers are generally non-believers, so it should be interesting to see the BBC's take on the conference
Complain about this comment
The one bright spot about this world-wide recession? The Chinese won't be able to afford their shark fin soup. Last year the high price of diesel almost had the Japanese tuna fishery considering a shut down.
On the whole, a little of the old economic slow down gives Mother Nature a chance to catch her breath.
www.scuble.com
Complain about this comment
Credit to NSIDC for confirming the error with their satellite that has been over-estimating the sea-ice at the Arctic by 500,000 sq k for several months:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Richard,
Please confirm all the BBC's headlines about sea-ice loss will be amended accordingly.
OK, I know you don't have editorial control over this, but shouldn't the BBC at least run a story confirming the error and remove the incorrect stories from circulation?
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS