Thongchai Thailand

THE SCIENCE FROM SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN

Posted on: May 31, 2021

scientific.american.special.edition - vishprjpt2

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN SAYS THAT THE PLIGHT OF SEABIRDS TELLS US THAT THE OCEAN IS IN TROUBLE: LINK: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/struggling-seabirds-are-red-flag-for-ocean-health/

Struggling Seabirds Are Red Flag for Ocean Health

PART-1: WHAT THE ARTICLE SAYS

Seabirds are “sentinels” of ocean health. If marine ecosystems are suffering, the birds will be among the first to show it. Now a major study finds that seabirds in the Northern Hemisphere are already struggling. And without extra precautions, those in the Southern Hemisphere might be next. The findings point to broader patterns of environmental change across the world’s oceans. Climate change, combined with pollution, overfishing and other human activities, is steadily altering marine food webs. Food sources are shifting. Some fish populations are dwindling or migrating to new areas. As a result, seafaring birds perched at the top of the food chain are struggling to breed and raise their young. They’re canaries in the coal mine, clear indicators that something is wrong with the entire ecosystem. Seabirds travel long distances—some going from hemisphere to hemisphere chasing their food in the ocean. This makes them very sensitive to changes in things like ocean productivity, often over a large area.

An assessment if based on a study of 50 years of data on 66 seabird species worldwide finds that many species aren’t breeding as successfully as they did in the past—particularly in the Northern Hemisphere. They’re producing and raising fewer chicks. The researchers looked at a variety of birds, including species that mainly feed on plankton, species that prefer fish and species that eat both. Birds that eat fish were found to be most vulnerable. In addition, birds that mainly feed at the surface of the ocean were more susceptible to breeding failures than deep-diving birds. These issues are more severe in the Northern Hemisphere with greater human influences, like shipping and fishing. Certain fish populations are declining or moving to different parts of the ocean. Even plankton populations are shifting over time. Seabirds often return to the same coastal sites year after year to breed and raise their chicks. During the breeding season, they make trips back and forth between the ocean and the land, foraging for food and returning to feed their babies. If their food sources decline or move around, it can make it harder for them to both feed themselves and successfully raise their young. The fact that fish-eating, surface-foraging birds are most vulnerable indicates that the upper part of the ocean is changing most dramatically and that that part of the ocean’s productivity is declining. The study doesn’t parse out exactly which human influences are most at fault. The researchers did conduct some additional analyses, which found that rising ocean temperatures are closely linked to the seabirds’ breeding success. A combination of climate change and other human influences has taken a toll on birds. That means interventions may be in order.

INTERVENTIONS LISTED: Cut down on fishing where sea birds breed, establish larger marine protected areas to stabilize fish populations, slash greenhouse gas emissions to curb climate change,

THIS IS BECAUSE SEABIRDS ARE SENDING US A WARNING SIGN THAT WE REALLY NEED TO DO THIS.

Action Alaska America Animal Animals Bird Birds Catch Fish Homer Prey Preys  Sea Seagull United States Stock Photo - Alamy

PART-2: CRITICAL COMMENTARY

(1): WITH REGARD TO SLASHING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS TO CURB CLIMATE CHANGE AND HELP THE OCEAN, KINDLY NOTE THAT THE OCEAN AND ATMOSPHERE TAKEN TOGETHER WEIGH 1.405E21KG OF WHICH THE ATMOSPHERE IS 0.37% AND THE OCEAN 99.63% BUT SINCE WE ARE ATMOSPHERE CREATURES WE TEND TO HAVE AN ATMOSPHERE BIAS AND ASSUME THAT THE ATMOSPHERE DRIVES OCEANIC TEMPERATURE AND COMPOSITION. WE PROPOSE ON THIS BASIS THAT THE ASSUMPTION THAT ATMOSPHERIC PHENOMENA CAN CONTROL THE STATE OF THE OCEAN AS IN SAVING THE OCEAN BY TAKING CLIMATE ACTION IS NOT CREDIBLE IN LIGHT OF THE RELATIVE INSIGNIFICANCE OF THE ATMOSPHERE.

(2): AGAIN IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SIZE OF THE OCEAN ESTIMATED AS 1.4E21 KG OR 1.4E18 METRIC TONNES, THE PROPOSITION THAT THE OBSERVED DIFFICULTY OF SOME SEABIRDS IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS TO FIND SUFFICIENT FOOD IN THE OCEAN TO RAISE THEIR YOUNG CANNOT BE TAKEN AS EVIDENCE THAT THE OCEAN MUST THEREFORE BE IN SOME KIND OF ECOLOGICAL PERIL POSSIBLY DRIVEN BY HUMANS FISHING AND EMITTING FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS. THESE KINDS OF HYPOTHESES ARE LIKELY A CREATION OF CIRCULAR REASONING IN RESEARCH ARMED WIITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE OCEAN IS IN PERIL DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND SEEKING THE KIND OF DATA THAT COULD BE USED TO JUSTIFY THAT POSITION. THIS IS RESEARCH IN REVERSE AND MORE LIKE ACTIVISM THAN SCIENCE.

(3): AS FOR THE ASSUMED IMPACT OF HUMANS ON THE OCEAN IN TERMS OF FISHING, POLLUTION, AND CLIMATE CHANGE, WE NOTE IN A RELATED POST: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/04/22/climate-science-101-4-22-2021/ THAT: THE WEIGHT OF THE OCEAN 1.4E18 TONNES. THE 7.8E9 HUMANS ON EARTH ADD UP TO NO MORE THAN 4.88E2 TONNES, LESS THAN THE WEIGHT OF A SINGLE POLAR KRILL SWARM IN THE OCEAN. THE WEIGHT OF ALL THE THINGS THAT HUMANS HAVE BUILT IS 1.1E12 TONNES. THIS MEANS THAT THE WEIGHT OF THE OCEAN IS ABOUT 3 BILLION TIMES THE WEIGHT OF ALL THE HUMANS ON EARTH AND 1.3 MILLION TIMES THE COMBINED WEIGHT OF ALL THE HUMANS AND ALL THE THINGS THAT HUMANS HAVE BUILT. THAT THE OCEAN IS THREATENED BY HUMANS IS NONSENSICAL IN VIEW OF THE IMMENSE SIZE AND COMPLEXITY OF THE OCEAN AND THE RELATIVE INSIGNIFICANCE OF HUMANS.

(4): THAT THE OCEAN IS THREATENED BY HUMANS IS NONSENSICAL IN VIEW OF ITS IMMENSE SIZE AND COMPLEXITY AND THE RELATIVE INSIGNIFICANCE OF HUMANS BUT THE BIGGER ISSUE HERE AND IN THE AREA OF OCEANIC CLIMATE AND ECO WACKO FEARMONGERING IN GENERAL IS THAT WE DON’T REALLY KNOW THE OCEAN. IT IS A HUGE PLACE THAT WE ARE ONLY NOW BEGINNING TO STUDY AT DEPTH. THAT HUMANS ARE AN ECOLOGICAL THREAT TO THE OCEAN OR THAT HUMANS ARE ABLE AND OBLIGATED TO TAKE CARE OF THE OCEAN TELLS US MORE ABOUT THE HUMAN EGO THAN ABOUT THE OCEAN.

(5): WITH REGARD TO THE REFERENCE TO THE HARM DONE BY HUMANS TO THE OCEANIC BIOTA BY OVER-FISHING, WE NOTE IN THREE RELATED POSTS THAT THE OVERFISHING HYPOTHESIS HAS NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE BUT SUFFICIENT MOMENTUM AND READERSHIP TO HAVE BECOME A TOPIC FOR ENVIRONMENTALISM FEAR MONGERING EVEN AFTER MORE THAN 50 YEARS OF FORECASTS OF OVERFISHING CATASTROPHIE HAVE ENDED IN COMICAL FAILURES. LINKS TO RELATED POSTS BELOW.

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2010/05/19/oceans-running-out-of-fish/

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/23/fishing-for-climate-calamity/

CONCLUSION: CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVISM, THOUGH IT CLAIMS LEGITIMACY BECAUSE IT IS A SCIENCE, IS INCREASINGLY EXPOSING ITSELF AS ANTI FOSSIL FUEL ACTIVISM THAT USES FEAR OF FOSSIL FUELS AS A TOOL WITH SOPHISTICATED CLIMATE MODELS THAT CAN CRANK OUT THE SCIENCE NEEDED TO SUPPORT THE FEARMONGERING.

FINALLY WE NOTE THAT THIS EXTREME ECOLOGICAL CARING FOR THE OCEAN THAT IS PRESENTED AS A VERY SENSITIVE VICTIM OF HUMAN ACTIVITY AND HUMAN TECHNOLOGY, IS NOT FOUND IN THE CLIMATE SCIENCE PUSH TO FILL COASTAL OCEAN FRONTS WITH WIND TURBINES.

4 Responses to "THE SCIENCE FROM SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN"

There’s no such thing as a “fossil” fuel.

Referring to hydrocarbons as a “fossil” fuel only uses the verbiage of the uneducated to make an uneducated point.

Believing that dinosaurs and swamps died all over the planet, refused to be scavenged or decompose, and then magically were buried miles under the surface where no plate tectonics have ever existed, is childish.

Hydrocarbons, whether liquid, gas or solid are all produced the same way as diamonds by pressure over time.

It is convention to call hydrocarbons we dig up as fossil but well known and generally accepted that there is no way to tell fossil carbon apart from geological carbon but that debate is not a climate change issue.

https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/08/27/carbonflows/

Is it “convention” to accept climate change as a recent problem caused by the use of hydrocarbons?

Is it “convention” to claim that science cannot distinguish between coal “deposits” and oil/gas fields created by natural geologic processes?

Is it “convention” to dismiss and declare an argument as not being a climate change issue because you don’t understand that the term “fossil fuel” is misleading to the public as well as inaccurate?

This is a really great comment, Ruben. The more I study it the better it gets. Thank you.

Leave a Reply to chaamjamal Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


  • chaamjamal: Very interesting assessment. Thank you very much. I'll read it again after golf.
  • chaamjamal: Good point. Thank you.
  • cédric cabrol: The effect of low level clouds could not be more obvious. But, it has not always been, since their number will initially have increased at first. Bu
%d bloggers like this: