Guest essay by Eric Worrall
In Australia a fierce debate is raging, between people who want to reduce the rising risk of shark attack on swimmers, by culling dangerous sharks, and greens, who often give the impression that losing a few people to shark attacks every year is acceptable. Now Professor Rod Connolly has added a new argument to the debate – he claims culling sharks exacerbates climate change.
According to the Brisbane Times;
As debate over shark culling continues along Australia’s coastline, a Queensland researcher has thrown another consideration into the mix – climate change.
Gold Coast-based marine scientist Professor Rod Connolly looked at data from coastal wetlands around the world and found those with fewer predators were less effective at storing carbon.
Simplistically, this meant less greenhouse gas locked away in plants and more floating free in the atmosphere contributing to warming and climate change.
The findings, published Tuesday in journal Nature Climate Change, came a few days after a seven-year-old girl was apparently bitten by a shark off Russell Island, near Cairns.
The abstract of the study;
Predators continue to be harvested unsustainably throughout most of the Earth’s ecosystems. Recent research demonstrates that the functional loss of predators could have far-reaching consequences on carbon cycling and, by implication, our ability to ameliorate climate change impacts. Yet the influence of predators on carbon accumulation and preservation in vegetated coastal habitats (that is, salt marshes, seagrass meadows and mangroves) is poorly understood, despite these being some of the Earth’s most vulnerable and carbon-rich ecosystems. Here we discuss potential pathways by which trophic downgrading affects carbon capture, accumulation and preservation in vegetated coastal habitats. We identify an urgent need for further research on the influence of predators on carbon cycling in vegetated coastal habitats, and ultimately the role that these systems play in climate change mitigation. There is, however, sufficient evidence to suggest that intact predator populations are critical to maintaining or growing reserves of ‘blue carbon’ (carbon stored in coastal or marine ecosystems), and policy and management need to be improved to reflect these realities.
Read more: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2763.html
I’m personally disgusted that anyone could put the welfare of a few sharks, even an entire species of sharks, ahead of the safety of Australia’s children. As for the alleged “climate risk” associated with shark culling – lets just say I’m prepared to take that chance.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
First he says “Yet the influence of predators on carbon accumulation and preservation in vegetated coastal habitats is poorly understood”
Then goes on to make a sweeping statement about the effects.
Climate change fanatic at work.
Maybe my ancestors shouldn’t have killed wolves. Who knows how much “carbon” was released because of dead wolves?
Bad, bad ancestors!
(Now French government is reintroducing wolves and spending millions of euros to indemnify shepherds.)
Of course the area of a forest isn’t the same as the volume of the oceans, and killing wolves isn’t the same as killing sharks, and killing too many sharks might have bad consequences on the dynamics of sea life. But bringing carbon into the equation seems like another example of “everything is about carbon”.
Everything ( all life ) is about carbon .
It’s just not about about CO2’s virtually nonexistent effect on temperature .
Well, of course, CO2 is the only climate factor they managed to tax.
Yet.
Well, it is the circle of life after all. Mufasa said everything is connected. Lions eat the antelope, lions die and become grass fertilizer, and the antelope eats the grass.
Of course, it is all perfect balance until humans started to make life easier. At least according to the eco-zealots. You see, burning hydrocarbons does not produce plant fertilizer, but carbon pollution. Never you mind that is still CO2, it is carbon pollution.
It’s ok to conserve nature. Don’t kill….
Isn’t it silly that the science is settled about climate change (always global warming if you read far enough). On the other hand anything and everything can cause climate change and the surplus of funds available to fund mediocre science or outright science scams is always available from government borrowing.
wolveslivesmatter
On the other hand, it is quite permissible to destroy many hundreds of square miles of peat bogs – known to be one of the most effective carbon sequestration systems on Earth – and chop down many tens of thousands of trees in order to erect thousands of entirely useless bird and bat mincing
subsidy wind farms, isn’t it?.That should be “
subsidywind farms”.When oh when is WordPress going to acquire a preview or edit function?
Reply:You can use CA assistant.
http://climateaudit.org/ca-assistant/ ~mod
“-known to be one of the most effective carbon sequestration systems on Earth – ” Seems you omitted ‘to me’ after your first ‘known’. I only say this because peat bogs are a most unstable carbon sink. Others out here would argue that the oceans are by far the most effective carbon repository on Earth. You are right however that subsidised economically ineffficient wind farms should not replace trees. There must be a better way to reduce flying foxes.
See those two little words “one of”?
‘We identify an urgent need for further research…..’. Enough said
i.e. gimme the moula!!!!
Before any culling, why is there a shortage of predators in the poor carbon storage areas?
Because no seaweed – no food or hiding place for shark food – no shark food – no sharks.
(I’m sure those scientists did think this out and I’m naughty suggesting they didn’t. Sorry. But they made such a good headline I had to.)
This is getting ridiculous–and I mean REALLY ridiculous.
I’m not a scientist, so I won’t say what does or doesn’t exacerbate climate change. But FEAR of climate change is definitely exacerbating stupid and irrational human behavior. Mass hysteria will do that.
I haven’t read the “paper”, but I am prepared to bet that the esteemed professor hasn’t looked at shark food intake and excreta compared to the the same functions in the target prey, I am quite sure that the amount of Methane excreted by a shark is a lot more “climate changing” then a bit of carbon here and there. Another money grabbing exercise and a “justification” for the greens “You Cannot Do That” to everything!!!!
Don’t you understand that everything is a Rube Goldberg machine of “delicate balance” and if you change just one little part the whole damn thing jumps the tracks! It is amazing to me that people who are militant atheist evolutionists do not allow any room for evolution in their view of ecology. All relations are apparently to evolve to a point of dynamic equilibrium and then stand stock still in a delicate balancing act. It’s so preposterous a proposition that only sophistry can keep it on its feet!
“There is, however, sufficient evidence to suggest that intact predator populations are critical to maintaining or growing reserves of ‘blue carbon’ (carbon stored in coastal or marine ecosystems)”
How are predators critical in maintaining or growing reserves of blue carbon? Do they eat the creatures that feed off of such marine ecosystems? Is this another case of finding a correlation and jumping to a conclusion?
In any case, sharks are not the only marine predators. And culling a few dangerous sharks is not going to have much affect on the shark population, unless shark attacks are not as rare as they keep telling us.
….and while we’re on the subject of exacerbating climate change, has anyone looked at CNN’s website lately?
Raising cattle and eating beef are the new SUV of climate change……
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/29/opinions/sutter-beef-suv-cliamte-two-degrees/index.html.
….with over 18 years of no AGW now, I somehow get the notion that the climate doesn’t really care about what comes out of the rear ends of cattle. But I suppose I could be wrong….
Oh, yes, we are behind schedule in our transition to a culture of insect eating, walking skeletons:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/06/un-we-should-switch-to-eating-insects/
The same species are off African and North American coasts. Starting with the lack of knowledge within a few hundred percent of what climate sensitivity is, how much sequestration is actually going on naturally (it was a surprise that the earth was greening noticeably and the Harvard research forest trees are growing more rapidly than thought), and oceans, the main part of the carbon cycle is largely unquantified in terms of ingress and egress of carbon dioxide, this is another egghead study by surprisingly simpleton scientists. The mission-oriented gravy train has had a reverse darwinian effect on the calibre of scientists in the field.
The common omission from all such studies is a perspective on magnitude of an effect. This one is so bad that it can be safely stated that any effect is negligible and may be even unlikely to be an effect. Tell me, good biologist/ecologists, what is the symbiotic connection between marshes and wetlands on land and this shark? Tell me how the plants know to stop their photosynthesis when the sharks are gone? Anybody out there with such knowledge willing to share?
Now, having said all that, I, too, would not be overly happy with a massive shark cull. Surely a little imagination could be exercised in the solution. Maybe attach a transmitter to the shark that sounds alarms from a horn or something on the beach when one of these beasts is within a couple of miles of the coast or a point appears on a computer screen map… Maybe try to perfect a shark repellent. Maybe close into shore, have the signal cause a net fence to rise up with floats. Gee we walked on the moon almost 50 yrs ago.
Of course.
The plants are accessing the Global Climate Teleconnection Signal. This signal, for instance, is what allowed various trees on the Yamal Peninsula to record climate signals from up to 1200 km away, instead of the local environment. The proper consideration of this signal was critical to the success of that seminal paper MBH ’98, which introduced the iconic Hockey Stick to the world. Clearly, the plants are using the same powerful mechanism to keep track of these apex predators offshore.
Aren’t you glad you asked.
On a less frivolous note: Many popular beaches in Australia are netted to keep out Box jellyfish. Those creatures can be quite as lethal as any shark. It is not really that unreasonable to net a beach, and warn people, “You are on your own” if they swim elsewhere.
What frequency is the teleconnection Signal on?
Perhaps Kenneth knows?
Mark,
What frequency is the grant cheque?
Auto
These nut cases need a serious horsewhipping.
What on Earth is wrong with people these days?
Won’t be long before someone proposes feeding “deniers” to the sharks.
Don’t give them anymore goofy ideas !!!!!
Since predators gain their distinction by killing more junior predators in what is frequently referred to as a “food chain”, it stands to reason that the presence of a species that preys on the heretofore most powerful predator should enhance the miraculous carbon-sequestering phenomenon.
With humans preying on sharks and sharks preying on humans, it’s a wonder there’s any carbon loose in the ocean.
Perhaps, when the newly discovered amphibian Martians make it to our seas, we shall reach a tipping point of predation and carbon precipitation.
I do not specifically support the culling of sharks that is happening in Australia, due to the fact that much of the culling is done unsustainably (I’m not against catching some sharks for food purposes or even to simply control the population, as long as it’s done without harming the species’ survival), but…this is just…I have no words.
Yet another reason as to why I’m a skeptic. Thank you for posting this.
Yeah. And the oceans are being overfished, lots of carbon based life forms gone. Near China there are hardly any fish so they are harvesting and processing jelly fish blooms that have replaced the fish. Climate change smimate change. There are a lot more important issues that are being ignored. Sad.
Well, I think saying that there are NO fish in China is a bit of an overstatement, however, overfishing occurs much more frequently there. That is a fact. Certainly sad indeed. Even as a fisherman, that doesn’t mean that I don’t stand for conservation.
Prof. Rod really has jumped the shark.
What are the chances of being killed by a shark compared with say being run over by a bus?
97%
Depends on your decisions. Sharks and buses predate in different habitats.
zero…if you don’t go swimming
But for people that swim as often as they can…and never take the bus…..the opposite
actually, you don’t have to take the bus to be hit by the bus. In fact, better still if you are on the bus, then you definitely won’t get hit by it.
I’m a recreational spearo (free diver). Where I dive locally in Northern NZ, Bronze Whalers, occasionally Mako sharks or “Sevengillers” may sidle on up, have a look at me then go pinch fish (usually Snapper and Kingfish) I have on my float line. All I feel is a slight tug on the line. We reckon they hear the sound of the spear gun firing underwater and come on in for a look from wherever they happen to be cruising. There is a fairly new device on the market called a Sharkbanz that we can strap to our ankles and float lines. I haven’t seen any sharks come visit since I started using it and importantly, the hard earned fish are not being pinched!
Perhaps the professor should go hand feed the sharks every day so their little tummies stay full and they won’t bother people. He would at least learn what balance in nature is.
I’m not in support of culling any sharks.
Build water parks and man made surfing waves for those who demand absolute safety and charge them for the experience.
+1
I agree, RD. If you don’t want to get eaten by a shark, don’t go into the water. It’s as simple as that.
Lemme see. The atmosphere on Mars is 97% CO2 and it is cold as Hell. Must have something to do with the sun?
The difference in CO2 is so absolutely infinitesimal that there are so many zeros to put in front as to cause RSI. To call this serious research is to besmirch the reputation of science itself. Even humanity looks stupid classifying this as serious science.
Those who’ve studied the science know that the ‘small percentage’ argument is not valid. What matters is how many CO2 molecules a photon encounters on its way through the atmosphere. The answer is many, even with only a fractional percentage concentration. However, there are a number of other scientific reasons why the scare stories about CO2 causing insane temperature rises are also not valid.
High Treason,
300ppm seemed enough to make grass, crops, trees, etc. so small amount doesn’t equate to negligible (idea from Steven Mosher in another thread). Yeah, CO2 does have the temperature effect, but I think the billion plus years of unbroken chain of life despite high and low CO2 (up to 5000-9000 ppm that made the coal seams) shows us that negative feedbacks figure larger than conventional wisdom thinks (they multiply the effect which seems to be why they have everything a way too hot in their models.
Also, to have a 20year pause in global warming (despite the reckless adjustments) while one third of all CO2 added to the atmosphere since pre-industrial times is occurring, tells you unequivocally that natural variability is a large part of the temperature changes and that CO2 addition is very much lesser a mover of temperature than CAGW proponents wish it was. Yeah there is the ‘ceterus paribus’ [latin for “all other things held constant”] warming physics caused by CO2, but this sets off phenomena that resist the temperature increase [negative feedbacks].
The reason the “debate” has reached the ‘jail-em, RICO-em, kill-em’ crescendo of late, is because proponents are resisting a truth that their minds are revolting against (real classical psychological denial – hence the now well known psychological illness among them coined the Climate Science Blues.
A sensible estimate of future warming? We’re on track to add possibly another 0.7C by 2100, with the probability for it being cooler than that, now elevated by the surprise “pause”.
Rod Connolly – Thanks for the laugh and BTW you’re a MORON!
You know what else was an effective carbon sink? The billions of Vermont trees cut down and pelletised to feed into Drax. Maybe we need more study into that.
I don’t know why, but I was always for killing sharks. They eat the fish that the human fishermen could catch. Sort of like getting rid of wolves, etc…