Salt-Water Fish Extinction Seen By 2048

[Fish Filet]

While doing research on a related project, I happened upon this story. Yes, it's almost a year old, and I'm sure it was probably discussed on RC previously but I was unable to find any threads concerning this, and was just wondering if others have seen this and what their take on this may be.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n2147223.shtml

(WebMD) The apocalypse has a new date: 2048.

That's when the world's oceans will be empty of fish, predicts an international team of ecologists and economists. The cause: the disappearance of species due to overfishing, pollution, habitat loss, and climate change.

The study by Boris Worm, PhD, of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, -- with colleagues in the U.K., U.S., Sweden, and Panama -- was an effort to understand what this loss of ocean species might mean to the world.

The researchers analyzed several different kinds of data. Even to these ecology-minded scientists, the results were an unpleasant surprise.

"I was shocked and disturbed by how consistent these trends are -- beyond anything we suspected," Worm says in a news release.

"This isn't predicted to happen. This is happening now," study researcher Nicola Beaumont, PhD, of the Plymouth Marine Laboratory, U.K., says in a news release.

"If biodiversity continues to decline, the marine environment will not be able to sustain our way of life. Indeed, it may not be able to sustain our lives at all," Beaumont adds.

Already, 29% of edible fish and seafood species have declined by 90% -- a drop that means the collapse of these fisheries.

But the issue isn't just having seafood on our plates. Ocean species filter toxins from the water. They protect shorelines. And they reduce the risks of algae blooms such as the red tide.

"A large and increasing proportion of our population lives close to the coast; thus the loss of services such as flood control and waste detoxification can have disastrous consequences," Worm and colleagues say.

The researchers analyzed data from 32 experiments on different marine environments.

They then analyzed the 1,000-year history of 12 coastal regions around the world, including San Francisco and Chesapeake bays in the U.S., and the Adriatic, Baltic, and North seas in Europe.

Next, they analyzed fishery data from 64 large marine ecosystems.

And finally, they looked at the recovery of 48 protected ocean areas.

Their bottom line: Everything that lives in the ocean is important. The diversity of ocean life is the key to its survival. The areas of the ocean with the most different kinds of life are the healthiest.

But the loss of species isn't gradual. It's happening fast -- and getting faster, the researchers say.

Worm and colleagues call for sustainable fisheries management, pollution control, habitat maintenance, and the creation of more ocean reserves.

This, they say, isn't a cost; it's an investment that will pay off in lower insurance costs, a sustainable fish industry, fewer natural disasters, human health, and more.

"It's not too late. We can turn this around," Worm says. "But less than 1% of the global ocean is effectively protected right now."

Worm and colleagues report their findings in the Nov. 3 issue of Science.

SOURCES: Worm, B. Science, Nov. 3, 2006; vol 314: pp 787-790. News release, SeaWeb. News release, American Association for the Advancement of Science.


By Daniel DeNoon
Reviewed by Louise Chang
Copyright 2006, WebMD Inc. All rights reserved.

[nmywrx]

That's one of the funniest and most ridiculous Nature Nazi stories I've read.

Ahhh!!! The sky is falling...the sky is falling...

[old salty]

I will be 76 years old by then (if I live to be that old.) Not only do I not care about the condition of the Earth in 2048, I plan on dumping as much CO2 into the atmosphere as I can until then.

[Dyepes]

So how would you feel if all that CO2 fell right back into your home and filled it up in the middle of the night? I am sure you would be quite happy telling God why it was ok to carelessly destroy the beautiful world He created for us so that your own children could not enjoy it the way you have. I wish people would have thought like you since the beginning of time, than you would not be able to enjoy your nice reef inside your house and maybe you would have a different opinion.

[cecilturtle]

Originally posted by old salty
I will be 76 years old by then (if I live to be that old.) Not only do I not care about the condition of the Earth in 2048, I plan on dumping as much CO2 into the atmosphere as I can until then.

A pretty nasty post if I ever heard one...and coming from someone in the medical profession, even if at the repair end. Boooooooooooooooooooooooo

[Musho3210]

treated

[joeycadre]

just more right wing wackos buying into limbaugh and his ilks' garbage about people who actually care about the condition of the enviroment are freaks and such.

anyone who says they don't care what the conditions of the oceans are in the future sure picked the wrong hobby to take up. why enjoy and care for an aquarium and then say you don't care about the oceans? idiotic if you ask me.

[reefshadow]

Hmmmm. Yeah, I dunno....

I get leary every time I read a report like this. Despite being couched as good intentions, many of these scientists are anything but impartial and often their current and future funding depends on results. The results that get the most attention are those that predict the worst outcome and make good media candidates.

The researchers analyzed data from 32 experiments on different marine environments.

What experiments, what data? How were the experiments conducted and what were the controls?

While it is obvious from current evidence that there is a problem, I don't feel that there is any way to predict this kind of doomsday scenario.

Empty of fish? I don't think so. Even much more closed ecosystems like lakes that endure way higher levels of pollutants continue to support fish and other animals. They don't become completely devoid of life.

The overfishing of apex or near apex predators with a slow recovery rate like tuna, sharks and salmon is a problem for us, but a boon to the creatures they naturally feed upon. We are funny in our analyzation of what a crisis is. If something disappears or declines and is something we can use (Ie, food), it is a tragedy. There is little or no thought to the positive effects this can have to other animals that aren't as useful to us. Not that the overfishing of the apex preds is good, but there are many ways to look at a problem.

Most people think of nature as having a perfect balance that works out every time for all the animals and organisms as long as there isn't interference from us. This simply isn't true. The advantage is constantly shifting whether we interfere or not.

I would take all news reports of this sort with a gram of salt (definately more than a grain)

[justinl]

I heard about this thing a while back. My own personal opinion is that we ARE on the verge of a mass extinction... i think that the way were going about with our lives, that it is inevitable. after that mass extinction, life will still be there to carry on. momma nature will persevere i think... even if only cockroaches, new york rats and mantis shrimp are the only survivors.

Do i think the oceans will be completely devoid of life? no. not a chance. obviously there will come a point where we will have to sit back and realize that the AMOUNT that we fish is completely NOT sustainable and we'll either severely cut back or just give the ocean a break completely. but like i said, human impact will leave (and has already) a very large dent in marine biodiversity.

[reefshadow]

I wanted to slightly clarify my position by saying that I do believe there is a problem, I'm not blind to that, there is ample evidence. I just have trouble getting anything concrete from these kinds of reports; they read like a National Inquirer or Weekly World News story, they are just full of media spin, supposition, and drama with no citing of real evidence or even basic details. That is what America currently thrives on, and it really bothers me. I could get more detail from a "Bat Boy Abducted by Anal-Probing Aliens!!! story (If you have ever stood in line at the market you know what that means

Much like the global warming computer model, there is just no way to tell what lies in the future. They can't even predict weather accurately a YEAR in advance, we are supposed to believe a computer projection of future decades? Most people don't even question this kind of "evidence", and I think that is rather scary.

I just don't believe it, the fashion in which these kinds of reports are written makes me believe it even less.

But the loss of species isn't gradual. It's happening fast -- and getting faster, the researchers say.

This kind of blanket statement really bothers me. I wasn't aware that we were losing entire species to extinction at such an alarming rate. Can anyone provide a list of all the various species we have lost so suddenly and irrevocably? Hmmm... fast and getting faster. Is that 20 a year? 5? 3 a decade?

The researchers analyzed data from 32 experiments on different marine environments.

Again, as my last post indicated, this bothers me. Are we too stupid to appraise how these "experiments" were conducted ourselves? A scientist who wants to be taken seriously needs to provide data, especially when using experiments to support theory. Unfortunately it just wouldn't sell the story; you need excitement, fear and drama to do that.

I just can't take an article like that at face value. If more data and less drama was contained it would be much easier.

[nmywrx]

Why don't we kill a few million people. That way we won't eat as many fish and generate as much C02.

Using absurdity to illustrate ubsurdity. I love how people attack Limbaugh and us "right wing wackos." They can't win the debate so they discredit the source. A common liberal tactic.

[SCR]

Isn't some asteroid suppose to hit the earth around 2036, or something like that?

[smithcreek]

When I was 10 a "consensus of scientists from around the world" predicted the coming of a Man Made ICE AGE that would cause catastrophic change to the earth withing my lifetime. I'm still waiting, and I'm not selling my goose-down parka yet. I'm sure in 30 years they'll be re-predicting the ice age.

[old salty]

Originally posted by nmywrx
Why don't we kill a few million people. That way we won't eat as many fish and generate as much C02.

Using absurdity to illustrate ubsurdity.

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!


You seem to be the only one who didn't let my post soar right over their head.

I do not form opinions based upon whether or not they are popular or to gain acceptance into a group. "This, above all, to thine own self, be true."

We are in the middle of a heat wave right now. How many of you environmentalists are running without air conditioning because you don't want to put CO2 into the air? How many of you are riding bicycles to work because you don't want to put CO2 into the air? I commute right through a major metropolitan city and haven't seen anyone on bicycles (except on guy that rides one to work every day, rain or shine.)

I'm in the wrong hobby?? You mean the hobby where I unnecessarily use copious amounts of electricity to sustain a small population of animals removed from their natural environment, then transported half way around the world for my viewing pleasure?? I also use water from the public water supply. Many people around the world don't have clean drinking water, and here I am using way more than is required for a comfortable existence. I see absolutely nothing environmentally friendly about reef keeping; pretending doesn't help me much.

I'll give this whole green, environmental friendly bandwagon a nudge of consideration only after I start seeing these preachers start practicing (this is called "lead by example".) I have little interest in it otherwise, hence my lack of preaching.

It is an absolute fact that in order for you to exist, CO2 must be pumped into the air. The more kids you have, the more CO2 will be put into the air in order for them to survive. The more goods you buy, the more CO2 goes into the air. Everything that is manufactured requires energy to produce and transport. There is no getting around this. I simply accept it for what it is, rather than pretend there is something I can do about it.

Me a right winger??? That is the funniest thing I have read in a long time!! Keep watching television; it's doing wonders for your ability to attach labels to people. Isn't this type of behavior called "stereotyping"? Aren't left wingers supposed to frown upon this behavior?

[stanlalee]

is there not a lounge for these type's of discussions or at least create a commercial fishing forum

[darkcirca]

I have to agree with Old Salty. I read his original post 2 times and thought about it. It really is true though, as we are creating so many more people which leads to more problems. Reefing does do damage to the environment, so you can't get on someones case about driving a car when you are taking fish from the ocean and running up the electric bill. I do it, and so does everyone else on the forum (unless of course you only have tank bred, then again the ancestors came from the ocean).

[BeanAnimal]

Originally posted by joeycadre
just more right wing wackos buying into limbaugh and his ilks' garbage about people who actually care about the condition of the enviroment are freaks and such.

anyone who says they don't care what the conditions of the oceans are in the future sure picked the wrong hobby to take up. why enjoy and care for an aquarium and then say you don't care about the oceans? idiotic if you ask me.

Get a grip and take your political rants someplace else. The guy was making a tongue in cheek point. If you were not so mired in your hatred, you would see that.

Where is that darn bike I need to ride to work?

[The Reefer91]

Originally posted by joeycadre
just more right wing wackos buying into limbaugh and his ilks' garbage about people who actually care about the condition of the enviroment are freaks and such.

first, let me point out how inappropriate and unnecessary a statement like this is. you label a political standpoint that you don't agree with and discredit sources in a crude and uninformed manner, trying to convey nothing more than "they're stupid". this tactic is very fascist, crass, unintelligent, and ridiculous. if you want to "diss" someone, or argue, do it in a polite, reasonable manner, rather than attack someone in a (i'm going to use a stereotype to prove my point) "crazy left wing, Clinton crackpots" manner.

get my point?

now unto the actual post. i have to agree with several posters here. most people cannot predict weather a week from now. why should we believe dooms day scenarios? yes, the earth is warming, but the theory that the earth is going through a warming period that it goes through regularly has just as much substantial evidence as any global warming theory.

Old Salty: you are spot on about people in the reefkeeping hobby. if you are REALLY concerned with the ocean, why have a reef tank? you're removing creatures from the ocean. and it's not like you can return the frags of your coral to the ocean, so that arguement is out of t he picture. also about preaching and practicing. why pretend to be something you're not? i totally agree.

Reefshadow:excellent point about the lack of specific detail. that entire article was meta-research, and i didn't see a piece of evidence in there that could convince me of mass fish extinction. the writing and phrasing made it seem almost like a college paper, and nothing more.

i think one of the real issues is overfishing, so i would be glad to discuss that topic in a friendly and polite fashion.

Cheers!

[Anemone]

Okay folks, keep the political viewpoints out of it, or the thread will be closed.

On the other hand, if it's just certain individuals that have control problems, that can be taken care of too (subtle warning).

Most of you are doing a good job arguing the FACTS (or lack thereof) and sticking to the subject matter at hand on which you provide your opinion. To you - GOOD JOB!

Kevin

[The Reefer91]

you're right anemone, sorry for getting a litle out of hand. my foot tends to reside in my mouth sometimes . anyways....

continue t he discussion

[HDAlien]

Originally posted by Dyepes
So how would you feel if all that CO2 fell right back into your home and filled it up in the middle of the night?

Well your pH will drop for one thing? Sorry, couldn't resist the humor. To be on topic I don't put any stock in that report either. I too remember the global cooling crisis of the 70's and the "sky is falling" mentality then.

[D-Rod]

To say that people have not caused a change in the earth is pretty blind.
Sure the earth is big from our point of view and it can absorb alot of crap but to say this is normal cycle is putting your personal beliefs in the way way of thinking.
If anyone can prove the oceans were meant to be a dumping ground for toxic waste and billions of tons of trash and a sewer for billions of people and not have an effect on the oceans of the world....Prove It!
It's not something you can say prove it to me first...we already know what has happened to many reefs, bays, inlets, rivers and swamps where goverments and people have dumped waste, toxins and trash in they virtually have died.
Now this is just the oceans and waterways of the world what about all the toxins put into the atmosphere or buried underground and leaching into our ground water.
I know I don't have the answers! but to think none of this has caused "NO CHANGE" to our planet whatsoever, in our oceans or atmosphere and weather you need to open your eyes


Take your tank for example you dump a little trash in every now and then, however you continue to do all maintainence and never take out the trash...don't you think that some day your fish will die?

This is how small we are in the Universe. Now remember many people don't believe this because of beliefs.

[Fish Filet]

I think we can all generally agree that one type of ecosystem that perhaps is neglected more than any other is perhaps also the richest in biodiversity -- the Coral Reefs. We all realize that Reefs are useful to the environment and to people in countless number of ways. However, and I think we can all generally agree on this as well; all around the world, much of the world's marine biodiversity faces threats from human activities as well as natural. I don't think the fear that very soon, many reefs could die is unrealistic at all. Take for instance a study done by Clive Wilkinson of WWF in 2004/5 which solidly concludes that 20% of the world's coral reefs have been effectively destroyed and show no immediate prospects of recovery. Millions of years' growth destroyed in a matter of few years not in part, but mainly because of human activity.

A report from the World Resources Institute (WRI) in 1998 suggested that as much as 60 percent of the earth's coral reefs are threatened by human activity.

Also, has anyone dived in and around Jamaica recently? Scientists have said that as much as 95 percent of Jamaica's reefs are either dying or are already dead; a claim that I can personally attest to. And the causes being blamed for the destruction are not climate change, rising CO2 levels etc but direct human pressures such as over fishing, bomb and cyanide fishing, making poor use of land, dredging, deforestation, nutrients and chemical pollution. Development of coastal areas - for urban, industrial, transport and tourism developments, including reclamation and mining of coral reef rock and sand beyond sustainable limits.

I don't think it would be viable to try and stunt human growth and expansion in the name of saving reefs and eco-systems about whose benefits to this world a very small percentage of population actually knows something, if anything at all. I'd be more interested in finding ways to perserving and protecting what's left to us by educating the masses on issues such as these. Invitation for political discussion removed On that note, I hope we can continue a healthy debate in this thread rather than politicizing it.

[johnski]

heres a chart showing the ice ages of the earth , it is based on the vostok ice core samples, if you look at where we are now in the chart , we are currently in a phase of rising co2

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...core-petit.png

[nmywrx]

I hate when people refer to pollutants in our tanks to pollutants in the oceans. There are 328,000,00 cubic miles of water in the worlds oceans. Think of how much flake food we would need to be put in the ocean to raise the toxins to dangerous levels. It can't be done by humans.