It seems the alarming story of “Ocean extinction has started in our time” making the rounds of the alarmist blogs and gullible media is nothing more than an unpublished, unchecked opinion, and some pal review amongst activists at a three day conference.
Barry Woods writes:
Oh for goodness sake (parallels to IPCC 80% greenpeace renewables story)
The International Panel on the State of the Ocean !!! IPSO – modest bunch – see mission statement (front page website)
http://www.stateoftheocean.org/
The International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) was established by scientists with the aim of saving the Earth and all life on it.
Another Press release – Gets a shocking headline – the wait for the report (so that it can be checked) so that it is forgotten about and at the end – it is too early to say, but the trends are, etc,etc,etc
Maybe the Oceans are in a shocking state, I’m just getting too cynical to care…
BBC: World’s oceans in ‘shocking’ decline – Richard Black – 20th June 2011
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13796479
“The oceans are in a worse state than previously suspected, according to an expert panel of scientists.”
“In a new report, they warn that ocean life is “at high risk of entering a phase of extinction of marine species unprecedented in human history”.
The International Panel on the State of the Ocean !!! IPSO
This is getting beyond satire ‘panel for the State of the ocean’ but no doubt lots more UN jobs and research required, plus urgent action and control of the oceans.
“The findings are shocking,” said Alex Rogers, IPSO’s scientific director and professor of conservation biology at Oxford University.
“Its report will be formally released later this week.”
Its worse than we thought (they considered)
”…As we considered the cumulative effect of what humankind does to the oceans, the implications became far worse than we had individually realised.”
“We’ve sat in one forum and spoken to each other about what we’re seeing, and we’ve ended up with a picture showing that almost right across the board we’re seeing changes that are happening faster than we’d thought, or in ways that we didn’t expect to see for hundreds of years.”
” These “accelerated” changes include melting of Arctic sea ice and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, sea level rise, and release of methane trapped in the sea bed.”
BUT at the end. – It is too early to say !!!!
“The IPSO report concludes that it is too early to say definitively.”
But the trends are such that it is likely to happen, they say – and far faster than any of the previous five extinctions.
I’m sorry but I have utter contempt for this sort of pseudo-science by press release…
I wonder what the report really says, and how well it holds up to the headline, I wonder if anyone will bother to check…
Seriously though: The International Panel of the State of the Ocean (IPSO)
With a name like that and their mission statement, – “with the aim of saving all life on the planet!” – they are hardly ever going to come to the conclusion, that it might be doing ‘just fine’,
Diagnosing the state of the Ocean’s health
IPSO is currently compiling the Global State of the Ocean Report, which will collate world-wide marine science to give a comprehensive overview of the health of the Ocean. The Report is due to be published in 2012 but we already know that the Ocean’s health is in a critical state.
=================================================================
Thanks Barry, but wait there’s more. Ben Pile, of the website “Climate Resistance” writes:
Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water…
World’s oceans in ‘shocking’ decline
Warns Richard Black at the BBC.
The oceans are in a worse state than previously suspected, according to an expert panel of scientists.
In a new report, they warn that ocean life is “at high risk of entering a phase of extinction of marine species unprecedented in human history”.
They conclude that issues such as over-fishing, pollution and climate change are acting together in ways that have not previously been recognised.
The impacts, they say, are already affecting humanity.
The panel was convened by the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO), and brought together experts from different disciplines, including coral reef ecologists, toxicologists, and fisheries scientists.
Call me a cynic, but I no longer take claims about ‘expert panel of scientists’ at face value. Sadly, Richard Black of the BBC does.
…
Ok. So who the hell are the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition?
A coordination team works together with a Steering Group that currently consists of the Ecology Action Centre, Greenpeace International, Marine Conservation Biology Institute, Natural Resources Defense Council, Pew Environment Group and Seas at Risk. The DSCC has developed a formidable international team of scientists, policy and communication experts, lawyers and political activists who on behalf of the deep sea have established a strong reputation and profile on the issue at the UN and in other fora.
The ‘panel of experts’ — IPSO — may well be expert. But, look, again, we see Greenpeace’s name up there, steering the research — in its own words — alongside the Pew group, and Friends of the Earth.
I don’t believe a word of it. This is not scientific research, it’s ‘grey literature’, put out by yet another grey institution, the true nature of which is concealed from first appearances. Not far behind, the agenda is revealed.
[Anthony: Ben Pile also located a helpful video:]
From the video description on YouTube:
Dr. Alex Rogers, Scientific Director of IPSO and Professor of Conservation Biology at the Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, gives the overview of the main problems affecting the ocean – and some suggested solutions.
Pile continues:
So, yeah, another NGO lobbying outfit, in cahoots with government and businesses, blurring the lines between activism, scientific research, and so on.
Back to IPSO. Here’s the web-page that relates to the new report. It describes the background to the report:
The 3 day workshop, co-sponsored by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), looked at the latest science across different disciplines.
The 27 participants from 18 organisations in 6 countries produced a grave assessment of current threats — and a stark conclusion about future risks to marine and human life if the current trajectory of damage continues: that the world’s ocean is at high risk of entering a phase of extinction of marine species unprecedented in human history.
So it turns out that this report took the scientists just three days of chin-wagging. Says the report:
The workshop provided a rare opportunity to interact with other disciplines to determine the net effect of what is already happening to the ocean and is projected to do so in the future. Over the three days 27 participants from 18 organisations in 6 countries (Annex 1) assessed the latest information on impacts and stresses, and the synergistic effects these are having on the global ocean.
Through presentations, discussions and recommendations the workshop documented and described the cumulative effects of such impacts, how these commonly act in a negatively synergistic way, and why therefore concerted action is now needed to address the consequences set out in this report.
==============================================================
Here’s the team from the IPSO website:
A high-level international workshop convened by IPSO met at the University of Oxford earlier this year. It was the first inter-disciplinary international meeting of marine scientists of its kind and was designed to consider the cumulative impact of multiple stressors on the ocean, including warming, acidification, and overfishing.
The 3 day workshop, co-sponsored by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), looked at the latest science across different disciplines.
The 27 participants from 18 organisations in 6 countries produced a grave assessment of current threats — and a stark conclusion about future risks to marine and human life if the current trajectory of damage continues: that the world’s ocean is at high risk of entering a phase of extinction of marine species unprecedented in human history.
Delegates called for urgent and unequivocal action to halt further declines in ocean health. (click for press release)
…
(They seem really upset about this photo, this fish seems happy with his new home though, and anyone who knows anything about aluminum in the ocean will tell you the fish will probably outlive the can – A)
So, the BBC story “World’s oceans in ‘shocking’ decline” seems to be based on nothing more than some joint opinion at a conference with Greenpeace activists, a regurgitated press release, and no peer reviewed publication yet.
It’s not uncommon for CO2 levels to be ~2000 ppm inside homes and office buildings….
…so ocean acidification makes this impossible inside a home
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS1hjq5dGVGqCDhJpi1g84TtO0x4cEFByKBXiEMVEAItnp7v5iC
Julian in Wales I think you have missed quite a few zeros in that calculation. Try doing it again.
Most, maybe all governments follow the warmist view and base their policies on IPCC reports , leads and off the cuff remarks, (to hell with the electorate), so doomwatch alarmists can say and do what they like and carry out funded falsified research (eg CRU at UEA ) – unfortunately crackpot greens rule at present.
@ur momisugly Julian in Wales says:
June 21, 2011 at 9:23 am
The estimated vol of the oceans are 1.3 billion cubic meters.
===============================================
I’m sure this was only a typo. It’s 1.3 billion cubic Kilometers, not cubic meters. 🙂
Smokey says:
June 21, 2011 at 9:29 am
Hugh Pepper,
Read the last sentence in the article. There are no research papers supporting this scare story.
____
Don’t know about the accuracy of the story, but the full report lists dozens of sources of research done to back up what they say. In fact, some of those researcher have actually commented here on WUWT. So rather than quote newspaper stories about this report, best to have a look at the actual full report itself right here:
http://www.stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/1906_IPSO-LONG.pdf
The lengthy list of research they used to create this report begins on page 5.
So, the bottom line is, there is actual research, and lots of it, to support their findings.
yea I read that story yesterday. Its getting to the point where im getting so jaded I cant even read the whole stories anymore before I roll my eyes.
Don’t say I didn’t warn everyone about this for some time! As “global warming” sails off into the sun due to lack of data/proof, they would latch onto “the other climate change problem,” i.e. ocean acidification.
I’m enjoying this!
Keep in mind that overfishing impacts far more than the stuff we want to eat (cod, flounder & other groundfish etc.). I was working with the fishing industry of Gloucester, MA when the fisheries of the Georges Banks collapsed in the 1980’s. Pretty ugly, lots of good fisherman lost their boats (usually by sinking them with dynamite to collect on the insurance).
However, the real pressure right now are on “industrial” fish used primarily for poultry and aquaculture feed formulations. Fisheries of Atlantic menhaden, Peruvian anchovies and, particularly, Antarctic krill are being decimated by immense factory ships sailing out of ports in Korea, China and other hungry Asian countries. This alone impacts the entire food web, as these critters are the forage for most higher forms.
Wringing our hands and pointing our fingers at one another does absolutely nothing until we address the fact that China must feed 1.34 billion souls (that’s about 4 billion meals per day). The Green Peace guys never talk about that part. Start with China.
Julian in Wales says:
June 21, 2011 at 9:23 am
“The estimated vol of the oceans are 1.3 billion cubic meters.”
Based on your other figures I assume you realize that the volume is about 1.3 billion cubic KILOMETERS. A fifth of a cubic kilometer is quite a lot of water if it is bioactive. We do not throw all our rubbish in the ocean, most solid waste is landfilled. A fifth of a cubic kilometer of ocean can handle the biodegradeables of an individual human being quite handily except for the problem of the outfalls (the dead zones at the mouths of rivers).
Most of the rest of the potential threats are due to long-lived chemicals and possibly mercury (we really do not know about mercury at the concentrations we encounter in fish) – point being, they are not “climate disruption” problems.
Trash and shipping intrusions are problems, not threats.
@Julian in Wales
That’s 1.3 billion cubic kilometers, not cubic meters. The rest of your analogy reflects this, but it’s very confusing when you switch from cubic meters to cubic kilometers.
“Dr. Alex Rogers, Scientific Director of IPSO and Professor of Conservation Biology at the Department of Zoology, University of Oxford…”
There it is. As anyone who has bothered to read my too repitious comments on this, my favourite pseudoscience – “Conservation Biology.”
This is NOT a real science at all. It is a ‘mission oriented’ post-normal joke based on all the junk techniques now made popular in AGW climastrology and driven forward by the Precautionary Principle. You know, mass extinction and all that… with the UN’s ‘Biodiversity’ project their Big Idea and future IPCC – they hope.
Junk models, cherry-picked data, and historicial revisionism plus major financial incentives for the missionaries and practioners with the ‘species-at-risk’ listing/financial system.
A perfect match for the AGW gang.
KnR says:
June 21, 2011 at 4:26 am
“Certainly Mr Black will not be revisiting this claim once the report is actual available, has his work will be done”
Indeed. He will not be revisisting this one (May 9,2011) either:
“Renewable technologies could supply 80% of the world’s energy needs by mid-century, says the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)…”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13337864
Just because it is now discredited as another Greenpeace-fed fantasy doesn’t mean it needs any further comment, right?
Black is a hopelessly blatant propagandist, and his knowledge appears to be no deeper than whatever UN or Greenpeace press release someone hands him.
Former newsreader Peter Sisson’s memoirs described how it was heresy at the BBC to question claims about climate change http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350206/BBC-propaganda-machine-climate-change-says-Peter-Sissons.html
The only article on the BBC news website about the recent AAS Sunspot prediction was by Richard Black playing down any risk of cooling. Not a peep from a science correspondent, yet they’ll happily report on lesser astronomical news and climate predictions. http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/auntie-%E2%80%93-your-slip-is-showing/
Ben Pile at climateresistance (see the link that Anthony gives) also lists the background of several participants; one of them being a philosopher, for instance… scientist yes, marine knowledge not so much. The Greens didn’t even try to produce more than a wholesale fabrication here. I wonder if they’ll manage to stoop even lower.
And the ease with which they duped the BBC and Der Spiegel!
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/0,1518,769558,00.html
The Soviet Pravda must have been the gold standard of reporting compared to what the flagships of reporting have become. BTW flagship, what’s the NYT doing? Check – fell for it.
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/oceans-are-at-dire-risk-team-of-scientists-warns/
They really must end this habit of issueing press releases before the paper is available.
Incidently, am I the only one to look at the group photo and think a lot of them look rather young to have gained the label “expert”?
Oxford University should be more careful who they rent space to, I take exception to the subterfuge of implied endorsement given by prominently announcing the venue.
I doubt very much if the kitchen at Canonbury Villas, London, N1 2PN would carry as much weight – but it would be entirely appropriate.
They also know that the papers purportedly referenced can’t be read and analysed in time to identify conflicting evidence – agitprop manipulation that’d have Goebbels smirking if he were still with us.
It’s like the ” y’air dumed, Duumed! I say” soapbox preacher quoting the bible.
Excreble antics really, designed to reel in believers, and fill the coffers.
There are problems with pollution and overfishing – Greenpeace haven’t actually been particularly active in acting against the worst offenders…. No this all about urban, “left of centre” ex Marxist or closet Marxist activism.
The overpowering stench of conceit and the undiluted scare tactics are just plain nasty, make no mistake these people want control – heaven help us if they achieve it…..
I mean, would you employ Richard Black as your personal life coach?
Hugh Pepper says:
June 21, 2011 at 9:06 am
“Gentlemen, please, your cynicism eclipses your skepticism. When groups of scientists convene to discuss their work, they enter the conversation with worlds of experience. There are hundreds of research papers available to inform their discussions, and these inform the conclusions, which you dismiss or trivialize.”
From http://www.climate-resistance.org/2011/06/a-deep-sea-mystery.html :
“Kelly Rigg is the Executive Director of the GCCA, a global alliance of 250 organizations cooperating under the banner of the tcktcktck campaign. She has been leading international campaigns for nearly 30 years on climate, energy, oceans, Antarctica and other issues. She was a senior campaign director for Greenpeace International during 20 years with the organization. After leaving Greenpeace she went on to found the Varda Group consultancy providing campaign and strategic advice to a wide range of NGOs, and led the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition’s campaign to protect the high seas from destructive bottom fishing.”
I surely don’t want to dismiss Kelly’s worlds of experience in agitating mobs, blackmailing corporations and duping dumb environmental reporters with lies. Surely not. If i were a dictator i would make her my information minister in an instant! (Wouldn’t let her care for the fisheries, though…)
Martin Brumby says:
June 21, 2011 at 7:32 am
Martin, do yourself a favor and don’t treat yourself to any more BBC propaganda!
Your blood pressure will thank you for it.
jrwakefield says:
June 21, 2011 at 7:39 am
I don’t eat any sea food for this reason.
Why not try some tasty farm-raised salmon? Plenty of it about.
Someone needs to tell MSNBC they can take their report down. They just posted it on the front page.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43479398/ns/world_news-world_environment/
russ says:
June 21, 2011 at 8:09 am
I find it amazing how these ‘chicken littles‘ never tire of humiliating themselves pubically…
I wouldn’t try that in public 🙂
aaron says:
June 21, 2011 at 8:58 am
Fish breed fast. Enforcement of a moratorium can recover most fish populations quickly.
————-
Tell that to the Canadian scientists overseeing the Northwest Atlantic cod fishing moratorium, first imposed in 1992. The moratorium is still ongoing (19years later). Only in the past year have there emerged the first signs of a possible recovery – one that will take further decades if fish stocks are to recover their former density.
Your comment shows a lack of knowledge of variant fish life histories. For short-lived fish what you say may be true, but some species live for 80 or more years, and unlike trees, experience increasing fecundity with age. Northern Cod females do not become effectively reproductive until around 7 years of age in northern waters, and as Canadian fisheries biologists belatedly discovered, their reproductive success increases with maturity.
If a cod spawns 1 million eggs, only one or two of the hatching fish will survive to maturity. A 20-year old female may spawn 5 million eggs annually – with a consequently higher chance of reproductive success. Unfortunately, Canadian fisheries managers were treating the northern cod stocks as if they were identical to the cod stocks of New England, which mature at an earlier age, and allowing fish below reproductive maturity to make up the bulk of the catch leading up to 1992.
Another instance is given by Pacific rockfish. Pacific rockfish live over 80 years, are slow to mature, and their fish stocks, were ‘managed’ as if they had a 10-year life span – i.e. most fish were taken before they had a chance to reproduce. Pacific rockfish will likewise take decades to recover under a complete moratorium.
Another complication is caused by the dynamic and unpredictable ocean environment. In some years spawning occurs coincidentally with a massive plankton bloom and newly spawned fish fry have abundant food. In other years a late spring or unusually cold water may result in the newly hatched fry encountering essentially no plankton whatsoever, with predictable results. If a fish stock does not have a complex age structure available, due to overfishing, or existing stock depletion, the results can be catastrophic – and would further delay any recovery.
Overfishing is not some environmentalist fantasy; the effects of removing entire species from an ‘ecosystem’ have further repercussions. Whilst I agree that the alarmist article is over the top, I hope that people here will not dismiss the very real problems facing the ocean environment, which are demonstrably caused by human intervention in several (if not many) cases.
At first sight of this press release, I wondered which hand they were holding out for grant money.
But with the “it’s worse than we thought” message, I thought I had the answer: both hands.
Then I noticed the “Intercontinental” part of the committee’s name. Now I know.
Both hands, yes. Pushing a shopping cart!
“However tying all this up with the false fear of ocean acidification…”
Amen. I saw a National Geographic magazine with a piece on “ocean acidification”. They were comparing a coral reef with a section of ocean atop a volcanic gas seep, and trying to connect the effects of the gas seep to the effects of atmospheric CO2.
One, the idea that the atmosphere would EVER get so high in CO2 as to equal a volcanic source. Two, the comparison of the CORE of the vent area to a healthy area. Three, no mention of the effects the increased CO2 in the water had around the edges of the vent area.
“So, the bottom line is, there is actual research, and lots of it, to support their findings.”
Rrrrriiiiiggghhhhhhttttt….
There’s also actual research showing that Greenpeace is not an actual environmental organization, but rather one intent on the support and fostering of totalitarian governments.
R. Gates says:
June 21, 2011 at 10:56 am
…So, the bottom line is, there is actual research, and lots of it, to support their findings.
Thanks for the link, but no -there is a long list of papers.
I read the first referenced paper which supposedly supports ‘disturbances of the carbon cycle associated with each of the previous five mass extinctions on Earth’. The words carbon cycle only appear in that document in the title of a reference.
So the first paper referenced in your linked document doesn’t support their findings. I can’t be bothered with the rest.
Here is a quote for you to take away from the conclusion of that paper:
…Indeed, debates continue among paleontologists about whether some of these episodes (particularly the Late
Devonian and end-Triassic) actually constitute mass extinctions…