Seabird Crisis (1 Viewer)

[Michael Frankis]

Agreed with most, but in the interests of correctness . . .

..... I imagine there may also be a few more malaria-carrying mosquitoes looking forward to holidaying in regions that so far they've stayed away from...

Malaria isn't currently limited by climate; it used to be endemic in Britain (where it used to be known as 'The Ague') and elsewhere throughout much of the northern temperate Old World, including areas far colder than anywhere in modern Britain. It was eradicated in the wealthier parts of the world (Britain, etc), by (a) making sure that all people infected with malaria were under mosquito nets at night, thus breaking the cycle of transmission, (b) (rather controversially by modern standards) massive insecticide spraying on marshland to eliminate mosquito populations, and (c) anti-malarial drugs (quinine, etc). Malaria won't spread from global warming; it might, almost certainly will, through increased global travel, any reductions in funding of surveillance, and increased drug resistance of the malaria plasmodium

Michael

 

[jpoyner]

Global warming is indeed one of the most serious environmental threats facing us at present. I studied Environmental Science back in 1985 and remember our lecturer then "preaching" to us what is now becoming a reality.
Yet still the world's largest economy and fossil fuel consumer is ignoring advice.
My point was that there certainly are many with vested and political interests who would prefer us to believe it's not a major threat. If we carelessly blame any crisis on global warming, then any later disproval gives plenty of ammo to those who wish us to believe it isn't such a great threat.
I'm certainly not as well informed as Stuart is on these matters and thanks for his input, though it does seem that in this situation there could well be other factors involved and I find it worrying if one of the UK's leading environmental organisations is starting to use flimsy evidence in order to back it's campaign.
I do however fully support the RSPB in their efforts to campaign on this issue.

JP

 

[Charlie M]

Michael, as usual you're absolutely right - climate change itself is not predicted to be likely to cause an expansion of malaria. What is possible is that as global warming cause social and economic conditions to change then diseases - particularly of the type that are carried within highly mobile human populations - are probably going to have more of a chance to spread.

I was attempting to link the concept to the sentence before, but I did it very poorly. I shouldn't have got carried away and tryto bring too many of my thoughts under control in too short a diatribe ) Apologies to one and all.

But it doesn't alter the fact that GW is happening, is happening now, and is b****y serious.

 

[StuartReeves]

Hi Stuart

I presume the causative factors (the fishery) in the first decline are not present in the current. Therefore RSPB have looked elsewhere and all available evidence points to global warming.

And it's also raising awareness of the problem of climate change......!

Although the RSPB blamed the fishery at the time, subsequent research showed that this was not the cause of the problem. It was more connected with variation in currents bringing in larval sandeels that were spawned in the (unfished) Orkney area. This variation in currents is in itself a climatic effect, but the conditions we are seeing at the moment are not neccesary abnormal.

The original article is actually fairly careful in its wording : "but scientists believe climate change could be to blame for their continued decline". Apart from describing just two years as a 'continued decline', there is little to disagree with there - climate change certainly could be the cause. And, as you say, they are raising awareness of the issue.

 

[Michael Frankis]

Hi Charlie,

The easy way to connect malaria spread to global warming, is to point out the huge and rapidly rising contribution made to both by air travel, particularly long-haul

Those who go on regular birding trips from Britain to south-east Asia, etc., take note!

Michael

 

[Edward woodwood]

Not sure how you interpret the data and graphs on CO2 emmisions and temperature in any other way?
The theoretical models predict what would happen with raised CO2 levels and the reality is bearing that out. Ergo we are making it a lot worse if not causing it - and it does seem to start when CO2 levels started rising - unless you think it might just be a massive coincidence? That first graph i posted and the steepness of the curve should be giving everyone kittens

out of interest and on a lighter note, the football was a draw - I played well as sweeper until i made a rick in the last 2 minutes. Should've put it in row Z but tried to play football - always a mistake...ho hum!

thought air travel had decressed a bit of late? Certainly seem to be less available flights these days?

 

[Jasonbirder]

Surely the first graph merely shows a small tempreture rise on the same scale as a CO2 rise - why does that imply a causal link? You could plot a very similar graph showing tempretures against EG: UK motgage lending - the graph would be almost identical - but i`m sure you`re not arguing that higher mortgage lending causes global warming?

I`ve not had chance to look closely but there doesn`t seem to be anything statistically significant that can be drawn from the graphs - margin of error/variation more than cancels out any perceived congruence....

As for the models - i did alot of mathmatical modelling and forecasting in a previous life and there are 2 things to bear in mind - the graphs are useless without being aware of the data and model they are based on and also hat you can generally nodel out any end result you want if you try hard enough....

I can appreciate why people want to draw attention to climate change as a big issue but simply linking it to CO2 emissions and leaving it at that is sloppy science - when something is done properly you come up with a theory and do everything you can to disprove it - if the theory is still standing at the end of that process - its worth considering, the problem with the scientists looking at climate change is that many of them have the agenda in place already and are happy to accept data to fit....

 

[Michael Frankis]

thought air travel had decressed a bit of late? Certainly seem to be less available flights these days?

Couple of brief downward blips after 11/9/2001 and the Iraq invasion, in an otherwise inexorable rise

Michael

 

[Michael Frankis]

Surely the first graph merely shows a small tempreture rise on the same scale as a CO2 rise - why does that imply a causal link? .... (etc)

Hi Jason,

That's undisputed physical chemistry - it is easy to demonstrate that CO2 acts to increase heat retention by precisely definable amounts, and that increased CO2 will result in atmospheric heating. Mathematically predictable to a high degree of accuracy from the structure of the molecule. Ditto for methane, halons and other infra-red absorbing substances

Michael

 

[Andrew03]

Hi
I think this http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1240566,00.html article is quite interesting - the head of an oil company showing concern. Not sure that I agree carbon capture and storage is the way forward, but it does seem to be getting more widely agreed that C emmisions are a serious problem.

One point that hasn't been covered is the theory that climate change will affect ocean currents, reducing/moving eg the gulf stream, and hence resulting in a cooler UK.

My conclusion is either way, reducing dependance/use of fossil fuels must be a good thing. (Personaly, I like wind farms, but that's another subject!)
Andrew

 

[Michael Frankis]

Hi Andrew,

Latest predictions re the Gulf Stream are only that its cessation will only result in a slowing of the warming in Britain, not cooling - it'll rise a couple of degrees here, as opposed to five to ten degrees in the rest of the world.

As Tim's graph shows, the rate of warming is frighteningly fast, faster than was expected, and way, way faster than anything that's ever been experienced in the earth's geological history. There's been periods in the past when the earth was much warmer than now (notably the boreotropical flora period in the Paleocene, about 55 million years ago, when subtropical flora thrived right up to polar latitudes), but the rate of change now is unprecedented. That's one of the major causes for concern - wildlife can adapt well to slow warming, but not to rapid warming.

The Paleocene warming (otherwise the fastest warming known) took 100,000 years. Without major curbs in CO2 emissions, we will do the same in 200 years.

Michael

 

[Jasonbirder]

Does anyone know if CH4 (Methane) input (principally from Livestock production and rice cultivation) is more significant as a potential greenhouse gas than CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) input?
Methane is much more efficient (at least 25 times as efficient) at increasing atmospheric heat retention as Carbon Dioxide.....

 

[Charlie M]

Not the answer you're looking for exactly, but...

"Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, although its concentration in the atmosphere is relatively small. It is increasing by almost 1 percent per year. Farm animals and animal manure contribute about 87 million tonnes a year, about 15% of all methane production worldwide. "

David Pye, 35th World Vegetarian Congress 2002

 

[Michael Frankis]

Hi Jason,

Overall, it is a smaller contribution than CO2, but not a lot smaller (I don't have the exact figures to hand). Although x25 more potent, there is also a lot less of it (if there was as much methane as CO2, strike a match and the whole atmosphere would probably go 'Bang!' (o)< )

Michael

 

[Andrew03]

And aren't water vapour (in the upper atmosphere, as churned out by planes) and N2O both pretty serious - again probably worse than CO2 on a 'molecule for molecule' basis, but not in such large quantities?
Interestingly, I believe kangeroos digest grass without producing methane - but in other ways are poor substitutes for sheep and cows!
Andrew

 

[Michael Frankis]

And aren't water vapour (in the upper atmosphere, as churned out by planes) and N2O both pretty serious - again probably worse than CO2 on a 'molecule for molecule' basis, but not in such large quantities?
Interestingly, I believe kangeroos digest grass without producing methane - but in other ways are poor substitutes for sheep and cows!
Andrew

Hi Andrew,

Yes for the first, and no for the second. Kangaroos are said to be very good substitutes for sheep/cows, their large, soft feet don't damage the soil or vegetation the way cows & sheep do, and the meat is very healthy to eat, low fat and what fat it has is good quality fat, not cholesterol-forming. At least some OZ ranchers are turning over to ranching roos instead of sheep, because of the better shape they keep the land in.

Michael

 

[Andrew03]

But I don't suppose shearing or milking them is an option!
Andrew

 

[jpoyner]

Playing the devils advocate........as sea temperatures rise, shouldn't the Oceans then become a more effective carbon "sink" and thus actively absorb more CO2 out of the atmosphere?
Problem is that we might well have all fried before this takes place. The gaia hypothesis of J Lovelock is quite interesting reading. That the earth acts as an organism as a whole and will regulate itself eventually in order to keep most life thriving. Unfortunately this means naturally erradicating any "viruses" which are causing it harm.......in this case known as MAN.
The planet's not really bothered after all, wait another few million years,clean itself up a bit, chuck all that nasty man made stuff back into the recycle bin and let the humans just re-evolve ..... hopefully this time with a bigger brain!!!!

JP

 

[jpoyner]

And aren't water vapour (in the upper atmosphere, as churned out by planes) and N2O both pretty serious - again probably worse than CO2 on a 'molecule for molecule' basis, but not in such large quantities?
Interestingly, I believe kangeroos digest grass without producing methane - but in other ways are poor substitutes for sheep and cows!
Andrew

The wonder of Bird Forum threads................from Sandeels to Kangaroo's farting...how did we manage that???

 

[Michael Frankis]

Playing the devils advocate........as sea temperatures rise, shouldn't the Oceans then become a more effective carbon "sink" and thus actively absorb more CO2 out of the atmosphere?

Unfortunately true - the oceans have absorbed about half of the excess CO2 produced since the industrial revolution. The result is that the oceans are becoming more acidic, making life for plankton, and all sea life that depends on calcium, more difficult. It has been suggested that any significant further acidification will cause major extinctions of marine life.

Which brings us back to Sand-eels . . .

Michael