This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
In case you missed it, French scientists are now predicting that GW will cause smaller fish. This can be added to your list along with the other nonsense. See: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.d672f9d7f0f64fefdf0b21e696b41e21.7a1&show_article=1 . Perhaps size really does matter to the French.
"Size is a fundamental characteristic that is linked to a number of biological functions, such as fecundity - the capacity to reproduce."
Yes, that explains why elephants have a faster reproductive cycle than bacteria. Waitaminnit...
Meanwhile, they do not even attempt to explain how their data rules out other potential explanations, such as:
- increased ability of smaller fish to slip through netting.
- less predation on smaller fish by large predators such as humans; imagine trying to scale, gut and fillet enough minnows to make a meal, as opposed to tuna.
Two minutes, two simpler alternative explanations that the research does not appear to refute.
You'd expect sea fish just to move closer to the poles, where conditions suited them better, rather than going to all the trouble of evolving.
"It has also been established that warmer regions tend to be inhabited by smaller fish."
er, has it? If so, where?
I thought it was axiomatic that where water temperatures were higher the observed effect is that larger fish are found.
Examples include fish caught around offshore oil platforms, in river estuaries and in the sea around power station cooling water outflows etc.
(and one reason why fishermen tend to focus on such areas for the best fishing - as can be discovered by anyone with internet access and a questioning mind set.
"(and one reason why fishermen tend to focus on such areas for the best fishing - as can be discovered by anyone with internet access and a questioning mind set."
So, since the fishermen select for the largest, it's no real surprise if the overall effect is smaller fish in such areas. Who needs warming?
Just to illustrate the point, a google search, even a basic one like "fish gulf rigs" immediately brings real world experience such as this:
http://www.sportfishingmag.com/techniques/tips/rig-for-the-rigs-52231.html where it is the plethora of fish that attracts sport fishermen, or http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119065809/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 which links warm water to increased fish stocks and fish growth.
quote: However, growth and survival of first-year bass in the Medway Estuary may be enhanced by the power station's warm-water effluent, such that overwinter mortality due to inadequate nutritional reserves and low temperatures may be considerably reduced. End quote.
Here is another: http://www.springerlink.com/content/l6k72p54343t3325/
And here is a 1974 report on "heat enrichment" that mentions the exploitation of power station cooling water outlets for various "aquaculture" projects such as oyster farms etc.
"Estuaries/Bays receiving cooling water outflows from power stations are known to be important nursery areas for juvenile sea bass1."
http://www.sos.bangor.ac.uk/pgrad/phd_courses/phd_descriptions.php.en (Project 7)
Logic ought to suggest that warmer water encourages more food production and more rapid growth. However, the basic premise is that warmer is bad.
Ergo, these reports are wrong or funded by the oil companies.
Plainly, there is nothing so beneficial in propaganda as an outright lie. Now anyone who challenges the claims that warming will destroy fish stocks is going to go to the gulags the Greenies want established to house deniers.
Something else we can propose for the list of things caused by global warming would be Stupidity.
Why stupidity? because the schools are closing due to the snow.
I don't know that I can remember ever getting time off school except for one half day in the summer once.
I remember the last big snow storm when I went home from work early and the great storm 20 years ago or so where I was one of two people who made it into work, but schools closing (1955-1970)?
It seems to me that it is too easy today to "not bother" because of bad weather or whatever other excuse comes to mind.
So, if this cold spell is caused by global warming (which a nice man in China says it is; not Professor Prescott but Guo Hu - (this Times article http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/weather/article6975867.ece) - "Guo Hu, the head of the Beijing Meteorological Bureau, linked this week’s conditions to unusual atmospheric patterns caused by global warming. " and schools close as a consequence, then this will (as an oft repeated event which it seems to be these days) we will end up with an even stupider graduating generation than the education system is normally capable of.
The Stupidity of closing schools is not entirely caused by the heavy falls of global warming we have recently experienced.
I skimmed a few newspapers and blogs this morning, so cannot be sure where I found the story. However it seems that if schools close because of the weather, and do not actually open their doors, their attendance records are unaffected.
However, if they open, and half their pupils cannot get in to classes, the schools are penalised financially for poor attendance.
As I remember it a few years ago, when the number of school closures was fairly modest, the 'explanation' for UK schools closing due to snowfall was mainly that the teachers (rather than the pupils) couldn't easily get into school. There's a much greater tendency for teachers to commute in to their place of work from several tens of miles away than there was a few decades ago. When I was a schoolboy virtually all teachers lived in the same town as where they taught.
However when I've seen head teachers interviewed on TV this year (and also last year) about school closures they seem to have switched to propagating the health and safety type argument, where they claim to be acting because the school premises and the modern custom of the 'school run' are unsafe in these weather conditions. So it may be that head teachers are protecting the interests of the teaching profession. If teachers get the blame for substantial numbers of school closures, then it might be argued that teachers ought to relocate nearer to their place of work.