Hundreds Of Millions Of The Global Poor Will Be Affected By Warming Oceans

By Jeff Spross on October 23, 2013 at 9:43 am

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/fish-ocean-ecosystem-e1382534890798-300x200.jpeg
CREDIT: United Nations Environment Program

The damage climate change will do to the oceans could be disastrous for the world’s poorest, according to a new study.

Humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions will alter the oceans in several ways, including shifts in ocean temperature, reduced oxygen concentrations, and higher acidity as they absorb more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. To track how, a group of researchers lead by Camilo Mora, a geography professor at the University of Hawaii, ran 32 marine habitats around the world through a series of modeled simulations. They looked at what would happen to these areas until 2100, under both a “business as usual” scenario — in which carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere rises to 900 parts per million — and an alternative scenario in which humanity takes drastic action to cut those emissions.

“Our results suggest that the entire world’s ocean surface will be simultaneously impacted by varying intensities of ocean warming, acidification, oxygen depletion, or shortfalls in productivity,” the researchers reported. “Only a very small fraction of the oceans, mostly in polar regions, will face the opposing effects of increases in oxygen or productivity, and almost nowhere will there be cooling or [decrease in acidity].”

These changes could very well reduce the oceans’ biological productivity. In particular, the models suggested a four to ten percent cut in the production of phytoplankton, which form the lowest foundation of most of the oceanic food chains. That in turn would mean “massive and challenging” ramifications for the 470 to 870 million poor people around the world who rely on the seas for their food and livelihoods. Many of them live in the countries that will be the hardest hit by the changes the researchers tracked.

This work follows up on a growing body of evidence detailing the unique threat climate change poses to the global poor. The problems extend well beyond ocean changes, to extreme weather and crop disruptions. Southern and southeastern Asia are home to a large portion of the global poor, and face destabilizing climate shifts, altered monsoon patterns, and floods. The World Bank has warned that within two decades, drought and rising heat could leave 40 percent of sub-Saharan Africa’s farmland unsuitable for growing maize or for grazing livestock.

Other studies predict 325 million extremely poor people will live in 49 of the globe’s most climate disaster-prone areas by 2030.

The ocean study was published this month in the journal Public Library of Science Biology.

Hilarious, all the fish around today have lived through sea level changes of hundreds of metres, temperature changes of a few degrees and wildly fluctuating co2 levels before but now all of a sudden everythings going to be buggered after a couple of metres of sea level rise, you should give nature more credit and hysterical global warming alarmism not too much credit at all  ;D

If anything the poor will adapt better than rich white front bottoms  ;D

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 25^th, 2013 at 12:49pm:

Hilarious, all the fish around today have lived through sea level changes of hundreds of metres, temperature changes of a few degrees and wildly fluctuating co2 levels before but now all of a sudden everythings going to be buggered after a couple of metres of sea level rise, you should give nature more credit and hysterical global warming alarmism not too much credit at all  ;D If anything the poor will adapt better than rich white front bottoms  ;D

The key to that article was not fish, but phytoplankton. You seem to have missed that. Sure, phytoplankton have adapted in the past, but not that quickly.

The corals and phytoplankton of the Pliocene were mostly different species which had adapted to the conditions of the era. 

muso wrote on Oct 25^th, 2013 at 1:26pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 12:49pm: Hilarious, all the fish around today have lived through sea level changes of hundreds of metres, temperature changes of a few degrees and wildly fluctuating co2 levels before but now all of a sudden everythings going to be buggered after a couple of metres of sea level rise, you should give nature more credit and hysterical global warming alarmism not too much credit at all  ;D If anything the poor will adapt better than rich white front bottoms  ;D The key to that article was not fish, but phytoplankton. You seem to have missed that. Sure, phytoplankton have adapted in the past, but not that quickly. The corals and phytoplankton of the Pliocene were mostly different species which had adapted to the conditions of the era.

You're just looking for an angle, any angle to push the global warming religion, there was show on last night that was plotting fishing boats on the high seas on a computer and there was f#ckin dots covering the whole screen everywhere, raping and pillaging everything in sight, this to me is 100x the problem non existent global warming crapola will ever be.
Same as the plastic scourge, if only we invested more in real problems instead of entertaining peoples crazy cults.  :'(

http://judgmentday2012.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/End-of-the-World.jpg


Some people waste their lives living in fear of something they have no control over, and some people just get on with it and live life to the full.

I'm glad to be in the latter group (I can't imagine what it would be like to be constantly consumed by irrational fear).

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25^th, 2013 at 4:47pm:

http://judgmentday2012.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/End-of-the-World.jpg Some people waste their lives living in fear of something they have no control over, and some people just get on with it and live life to the full. I'm glad to be in the latter group

---

F#ck red arse what happened?, did you get pack raped by the gorillas?  :o

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 25^th, 2013 at 4:59pm:

F#ck red arse what happened?, did you get pack raped by the gorillas?  :o

Well, it wouldn't really be rape.

However, it appears as though he has been frozen with fear.  First it attacks the brain, then the body.  He didn't stand a chance.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25^th, 2013 at 4:47pm:

Some people waste their lives living in fear of something they have no control over, and some people just get on with it and live life to the full. I'm glad to be in the latter group (I can't imagine what it would be like to be constantly consumed by irrational fear).

I don't live in fear of it, because for one thing, I will be dead by the time the major consequences become apparent.

You guys are clearly in denial. The fact that you spend so much time in this forum shows that what you have is not apathy, but real fear-based denial.

muso wrote on Oct 25^th, 2013 at 5:05pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 4:47pm: Some people waste their lives living in fear of something they have no control over, and some people just get on with it and live life to the full. I'm glad to be in the latter group (I can't imagine what it would be like to be constantly consumed by irrational fear). I don't live in fear of it, because for one thing, I will be dead by the time the major consequences become apparent. You guys are clearly in denial. The fact that you spend so much time in this forum shows that what you have is not apathy, but real fear-based denial.

You're just out to save the world for future generations, hey?  Good on ya!   ::)  Maybe Liz will give you a medal.

Nothing to be scared of dude.  Have a cup of tea and chillax.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25^th, 2013 at 5:10pm:

muso wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 5:05pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 4:47pm: Some people waste their lives living in fear of something they have no control over, and some people just get on with it and live life to the full. I'm glad to be in the latter group (I can't imagine what it would be like to be constantly consumed by irrational fear). I don't live in fear of it, because for one thing, I will be dead by the time the major consequences become apparent. You guys are clearly in denial. The fact that you spend so much time in this forum shows that what you have is not apathy, but real fear-based denial. You're just out to save the world for future generations, hey?  Good on ya!   ::)  Maybe Liz will give you a medal. Nothing to be scared of dude.  Have a cup of tea and chillax.

It  may be difficult for you to come to terms with, but it's an evolutionary trait, both collectively and individually to CARE and have an interest in survival and the future.

The sociopaths and self destructive psychopaths are basically rare exceptions, out layers, freaks if you will.

I am not surprised you lack empathy

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25^th, 2013 at 6:56pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 5:10pm: muso wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 5:05pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 4:47pm: Some people waste their lives living in fear of something they have no control over, and some people just get on with it and live life to the full. I'm glad to be in the latter group (I can't imagine what it would be like to be constantly consumed by irrational fear). I don't live in fear of it, because for one thing, I will be dead by the time the major consequences become apparent. You guys are clearly in denial. The fact that you spend so much time in this forum shows that what you have is not apathy, but real fear-based denial. You're just out to save the world for future generations, hey?  Good on ya!   ::)  Maybe Liz will give you a medal. Nothing to be scared of dude.  Have a cup of tea and chillax. It  may be difficult for you to come to terms with, but it's an evolutionary trait, both collectively and individually to CARE and have an interest in survival and the future.

My survival isn't under threat, and the future doesn't exist.

Chillax, dude.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25^th, 2013 at 7:03pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 6:56pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 5:10pm: muso wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 5:05pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 4:47pm: Some people waste their lives living in fear of something they have no control over, and some people just get on with it and live life to the full. I'm glad to be in the latter group (I can't imagine what it would be like to be constantly consumed by irrational fear). I don't live in fear of it, because for one thing, I will be dead by the time the major consequences become apparent. You guys are clearly in denial. The fact that you spend so much time in this forum shows that what you have is not apathy, but real fear-based denial. You're just out to save the world for future generations, hey?  Good on ya!   ::)  Maybe Liz will give you a medal. Nothing to be scared of dude.  Have a cup of tea and chillax. It  may be difficult for you to come to terms with, but it's an evolutionary trait, both collectively and individually to CARE and have an interest in survival and the future. My survival isn't under threat, and the future doesn't exist. Chillax, dude.

The future must just be another one of those theories, like gravity and rainfall

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25^th, 2013 at 7:06pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 7:03pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 6:56pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 5:10pm: muso wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 5:05pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 4:47pm: Some people waste their lives living in fear of something they have no control over, and some people just get on with it and live life to the full. I'm glad to be in the latter group (I can't imagine what it would be like to be constantly consumed by irrational fear). I don't live in fear of it, because for one thing, I will be dead by the time the major consequences become apparent. You guys are clearly in denial. The fact that you spend so much time in this forum shows that what you have is not apathy, but real fear-based denial. You're just out to save the world for future generations, hey?  Good on ya!   ::)  Maybe Liz will give you a medal. Nothing to be scared of dude.  Have a cup of tea and chillax. It  may be difficult for you to come to terms with, but it's an evolutionary trait, both collectively and individually to CARE and have an interest in survival and the future. My survival isn't under threat, and the future doesn't exist. Chillax, dude. The future must just be another one of those theories, like gravity and rainfall

You have a very strange "understanding" of theories.

The future doesn't exist: it's a concept.  Deal with it.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25^th, 2013 at 7:07pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 7:06pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 7:03pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 6:56pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 5:10pm: muso wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 5:05pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 4:47pm: Some people waste their lives living in fear of something they have no control over, and some people just get on with it and live life to the full. I'm glad to be in the latter group (I can't imagine what it would be like to be constantly consumed by irrational fear). I don't live in fear of it, because for one thing, I will be dead by the time the major consequences become apparent. You guys are clearly in denial. The fact that you spend so much time in this forum shows that what you have is not apathy, but real fear-based denial. You're just out to save the world for future generations, hey?  Good on ya!   ::)  Maybe Liz will give you a medal. Nothing to be scared of dude.  Have a cup of tea and chillax. It  may be difficult for you to come to terms with, but it's an evolutionary trait, both collectively and individually to CARE and have an interest in survival and the future. My survival isn't under threat, and the future doesn't exist. Chillax, dude. The future must just be another one of those theories, like gravity and rainfall You have a very strange "understanding" of theories. The future doesn't exist: it's a concept.  Deal with it.

So on that linguistic and semantical level a person can do what ever they like NOW, because he cars about the concept of the future?

Tell you what. Go and rob and bank and wait for the police to arrive when the alarm goes off. See what happens to your conceptual future

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25^th, 2013 at 7:20pm:

So on that linguistic and semantical level a person can do what ever they like NOW, because he cars about the concept of the future?

Nope.  Nobody said that.

The sooner you get those eyes checked, the better it will be for all of us.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25^th, 2013 at 7:25pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 7:20pm: So on that linguistic and semantical level a person can do what ever they like NOW, because he cars about the concept of the future? Nope.  Nobody said that. The sooner you get those eyes checked, the better it will be for all of us.

Gravity is just a theory.

Do you deny that the force of gravity is real and classed as a scientific fact?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25^th, 2013 at 7:28pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 7:25pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 7:20pm: So on that linguistic and semantical level a person can do what ever they like NOW, because he cars about the concept of the future? Nope.  Nobody said that. The sooner you get those eyes checked, the better it will be for all of us. Gravity is just a theory. Do you deny that the force of gravity is real and classed as a scientific fact?

Stay focused.

AGW is not "an undeniable fact of nature".



http://i.imgur.com/TD6pE.png

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25^th, 2013 at 7:31pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 7:28pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 7:25pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 7:20pm: So on that linguistic and semantical level a person can do what ever they like NOW, because he cars about the concept of the future? Nope.  Nobody said that. The sooner you get those eyes checked, the better it will be for all of us. Gravity is just a theory. Do you deny that the force of gravity is real and classed as a scientific fact? Stay focused. AGW is not "an undeniable fact of nature". http://i.imgur.com/TD6pE.png

Are you denying that the force of gravity is a scientific fact of nature, because there are 2 major theories in physics that pertain to it?

You obviously don't understand some of the basics of how science works.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25^th, 2013 at 7:35pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 7:31pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 7:28pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 7:25pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 7:20pm: So on that linguistic and semantical level a person can do what ever they like NOW, because he cars about the concept of the future? Nope.  Nobody said that. The sooner you get those eyes checked, the better it will be for all of us. Gravity is just a theory. Do you deny that the force of gravity is real and classed as a scientific fact? Stay focused. AGW is not "an undeniable fact of nature". http://i.imgur.com/TD6pE.png Are you denying that the force of gravity is a scientific fact of nature, because there are 2 major theories in physics that pertain to it? You obviously don't understand some of the basics of how science works.

You don't understand that AGW is not "an undeniable fact of nature".

Why you don't understand, I'm not sure.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25^th, 2013 at 11:38pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 7:35pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 7:31pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 7:28pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 7:25pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 7:20pm: So on that linguistic and semantical level a person can do what ever they like NOW, because he cars about the concept of the future? Nope.  Nobody said that. The sooner you get those eyes checked, the better it will be for all of us. Gravity is just a theory. Do you deny that the force of gravity is real and classed as a scientific fact? Stay focused. AGW is not "an undeniable fact of nature". http://i.imgur.com/TD6pE.png Are you denying that the force of gravity is a scientific fact of nature, because there are 2 major theories in physics that pertain to it? You obviously don't understand some of the basics of how science works. You don't understand that AGW is not "an undeniable fact of nature". Why you don't understand, I'm not sure.

You are the  one who denies the undeniable FACTUAL nature of AGW - a very simple verifiable scientific FACT.

Even your beloved fossil fuel corporations don't deny this as a fact.

Now, explain to everyone in here why science can have two major THEORIES that underpin the gravitational force, and yet the force of gravity is classified as an undeniable FACT of nature.

You do understand the difference don't you?

Havent the priests in your church group allowed you exposure to the truth?

Do you deny the existence of rainfall because there are theories relating to the precipitation of water in the earths atmosphere, and therefore you can have a subjective denialist dismissing stance of a basic scientific fact?

Facts can be challenged - but they require extraordinary evidence, often major paradigm shifts in understanding etc

do you have such evidence or shifts in understanding that relate to CO2 being a greenhouse gas and/or being a by product of fossil fuel combustion?

*crickets* until the end of 2019

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 26^th, 2013 at 6:47am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 11:38pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 7:35pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 7:31pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 7:28pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 7:25pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 7:20pm: So on that linguistic and semantical level a person can do what ever they like NOW, because he cars about the concept of the future? Nope.  Nobody said that. The sooner you get those eyes checked, the better it will be for all of us. Gravity is just a theory. Do you deny that the force of gravity is real and classed as a scientific fact? Stay focused. AGW is not "an undeniable fact of nature". http://i.imgur.com/TD6pE.png Are you denying that the force of gravity is a scientific fact of nature, because there are 2 major theories in physics that pertain to it? You obviously don't understand some of the basics of how science works. You don't understand that AGW is not "an undeniable fact of nature". Why you don't understand, I'm not sure. You are the  one who denies the undeniable FACTUAL nature of AGW - a very simple verifiable scientific FACT.

The AGW theory exists, yes.  That most certainly is a fact.

However, AGW is merely a theory, not "an undeniable fact of nature".

I hope this clarifies things for you.

Another 'what if' doom and gloom study predicted by the soothsayers.
And something else for the handwringers to be distressed about.

mr greggy believes that one can deny the existence of any scientific fact purely because there is one or more theory attached to any fact, which underpins an explanation

so rainfall and the force of gravity, electricity, solar radiation etc are merely theories.

greggy losing his integrity in here with every post he airs in public

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 26^th, 2013 at 10:53am:

so rainfall and the force of gravity, electricity, solar radiation etc are merely theories.

Try to remain focused.

This thread isn't about gravity (you're just making a fool of yourself).

AGW is a theory - that's a fact.

However, it's not "an undeniable fact of nature".

Glad we've cleared that up.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 26^th, 2013 at 11:06am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 10:53am: so rainfall and the force of gravity, electricity, solar radiation etc are merely theories. Try to remain focused. This thread isn't about gravity (you're just making a fool of yourself). AGW is a theory - that's a fact. However, it's not "an undeniable fact of nature". Glad we've cleared that up.

So the force of gravity can be denied as a fact purely based upon the fact that a theory is coupled with its explanation?

Anthropogenic Global Warming is an undeniable verifiable FACT of nature.

To challenge the validity of this simple scientific fact, you will require an alternative explanation WITH lots and lots of supporting data

Do you have it?

The fossil fuel industry don't have it. Even your mentor Andrew Bolt doesn't have it.

The fossil fuel corporations don't attend your church Mr Greggy - even though they fund.

EXONN is quite content and certain that AGW is a FACT and urgent global action is required to mitigate its effects going into the future

But then ladies and gentlemen Mr Greggy also denies that the FUTURE exists because of his conceptual semantics. A convenient notional belief that allows Mr Greggy to practice his lies and evil doings in the PRESENT.

Isnt that a fact Mr Greggy?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 26^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

Anthropogenic Global Warming is an undeniable verifiable FACT of nature. To challenge the validity of this simple scientific fact, you will require an alternative explanation WITH lots and lots of supporting data

No, AGW is a theory.

And, to support your theory, you'll need to provide some convincing evidence.

Good luck.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 26^th, 2013 at 11:26am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 11:23am: Anthropogenic Global Warming is an undeniable verifiable FACT of nature. To challenge the validity of this simple scientific fact, you will require an alternative explanation WITH lots and lots of supporting data No, AGW is a theory. And, to support your theory, you'll need to provide some convincing evidence. Good luck.

So you deny that human activities can warm the planet?

Funny - every single scientific organisation, nation, corporation in the world accept AGW as an undeniable FACT of nature.

Your church group doesn't seem to have many numbers attending on the weekend. you priests must be feeling very insecure

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 26^th, 2013 at 12:14pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 11:26am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 11:23am: Anthropogenic Global Warming is an undeniable verifiable FACT of nature. To challenge the validity of this simple scientific fact, you will require an alternative explanation WITH lots and lots of supporting data No, AGW is a theory. And, to support your theory, you'll need to provide some convincing evidence. Good luck. So you deny that human activities can warm the planet?   Absolutely not. The possibility is there. Funny - every single scientific organisation, nation, corporation in the world accept AGW as an undeniable FACT of nature.  No, they don't.  They accept it as a theory. Your church group doesn't seem to have many numbers attending on the weekend. you priests must be feeling very insecure I'm not a member of a church, sorry.  You've mistaken me for someone else again.

 

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 26^th, 2013 at 12:59pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 12:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 11:26am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 11:23am: Anthropogenic Global Warming is an undeniable verifiable FACT of nature. To challenge the validity of this simple scientific fact, you will require an alternative explanation WITH lots and lots of supporting data No, AGW is a theory. And, to support your theory, you'll need to provide some convincing evidence. Good luck. So you deny that human activities can warm the planet?   Absolutely not. The possibility is there. Funny - every single scientific organisation, nation, corporation in the world accept AGW as an undeniable FACT of nature.  No, they don't.  They accept it as a theory. Your church group doesn't seem to have many numbers attending on the weekend. you priests must be feeling very insecure I'm not a member of a church, sorry.  You've mistaken me for someone else again.

Your opinion, as you've bragged, is founded in igonorance and ego. You claim scepticism, but repeatedly prove otherwise. You lie, wholesale. What are you worth, greggerypeccary?

# wrote on Oct 25^th, 2013 at 6:16am:

Hundreds Of Millions Of The Global Poor Will Be Affected By Warming Oceans By Jeff Spross on October 23, 2013 at 9:43 am http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/fish-ocean-ecosystem-e1382534890798-300x200.jpeg CREDIT: United Nations Environment Program The damage climate change will do to the oceans could be disastrous for the world’s poorest, according to a new study. Humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions will alter the oceans in several ways, including shifts in ocean temperature, reduced oxygen concentrations, and higher acidity as they absorb more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. To track how, a group of researchers lead by Camilo Mora, a geography professor at the University of Hawaii, ran 32 marine habitats around the world through a series of modeled simulations. They looked at what would happen to these areas until 2100, under both a “business as usual” scenario — in which carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere rises to 900 parts per million — and an alternative scenario in which humanity takes drastic action to cut those emissions. “Our results suggest that the entire world’s ocean surface will be simultaneously impacted by varying intensities of ocean warming, acidification, oxygen depletion, or shortfalls in productivity,” the researchers reported. “Only a very small fraction of the oceans, mostly in polar regions, will face the opposing effects of increases in oxygen or productivity, and almost nowhere will there be cooling or [decrease in acidity].” These changes could very well reduce the oceans’ biological productivity. In particular, the models suggested a four to ten percent cut in the production of phytoplankton, which form the lowest foundation of most of the oceanic food chains. That in turn would mean “massive and challenging” ramifications for the 470 to 870 million poor people around the world who rely on the seas for their food and livelihoods. Many of them live in the countries that will be the hardest hit by the changes the researchers tracked. This work follows up on a growing body of evidence detailing the unique threat climate change poses to the global poor. The problems extend well beyond ocean changes, to extreme weather and crop disruptions. Southern and southeastern Asia are home to a large portion of the global poor, and face destabilizing climate shifts, altered monsoon patterns, and floods. The World Bank has warned that within two decades, drought and rising heat could leave 40 percent of sub-Saharan Africa’s farmland unsuitable for growing maize or for grazing livestock. Other studies predict 325 million extremely poor people will live in 49 of the globe’s most climate disaster-prone areas by 2030. The ocean study was published this month in the journal Public Library of Science Biology.

Sorry dude the high priests of global warming actually want to get rid of the poor in this world, eg. third world countries.

The new poor to replace them will be the middle class of the western world.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1382479215

# wrote on Oct 26^th, 2013 at 3:45pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 12:59pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 12:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 11:26am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 11:23am: Anthropogenic Global Warming is an undeniable verifiable FACT of nature. To challenge the validity of this simple scientific fact, you will require an alternative explanation WITH lots and lots of supporting data No, AGW is a theory. And, to support your theory, you'll need to provide some convincing evidence. Good luck. So you deny that human activities can warm the planet?   Absolutely not. The possibility is there. Funny - every single scientific organisation, nation, corporation in the world accept AGW as an undeniable FACT of nature.  No, they don't.  They accept it as a theory. Your church group doesn't seem to have many numbers attending on the weekend. you priests must be feeling very insecure I'm not a member of a church, sorry.  You've mistaken me for someone else again.   Your opinion, as you've bragged, is founded in igonorance and ego. You claim scepticism, but repeatedly prove otherwise. You lie, wholesale. What are you worth, greggerypeccary?

You back off my mate Greggy - I happen to admire Greggy and his illness.

Then again, I also put dead rats on my cereal in the morning

# wrote on Oct 26^th, 2013 at 3:45pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 12:59pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 12:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 11:26am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 11:23am: Anthropogenic Global Warming is an undeniable verifiable FACT of nature. To challenge the validity of this simple scientific fact, you will require an alternative explanation WITH lots and lots of supporting data No, AGW is a theory. And, to support your theory, you'll need to provide some convincing evidence. Good luck. So you deny that human activities can warm the planet?   Absolutely not. The possibility is there. Funny - every single scientific organisation, nation, corporation in the world accept AGW as an undeniable FACT of nature.  No, they don't.  They accept it as a theory. Your church group doesn't seem to have many numbers attending on the weekend. you priests must be feeling very insecure I'm not a member of a church, sorry.  You've mistaken me for someone else again.   Your opinion, as you've bragged, is founded in igonorance and ego. You claim scepticism, but repeatedly prove otherwise. You lie, wholesale. What are you worth, greggerypeccary?

Hmmm, criticism from one of the most worthless (and ignorant) trolls on this forum.

Devastating.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 26^th, 2013 at 6:43pm:

# wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 3:45pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 12:59pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 12:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 11:26am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 11:23am: Anthropogenic Global Warming is an undeniable verifiable FACT of nature. To challenge the validity of this simple scientific fact, you will require an alternative explanation WITH lots and lots of supporting data No, AGW is a theory. And, to support your theory, you'll need to provide some convincing evidence. Good luck. So you deny that human activities can warm the planet?   Absolutely not. The possibility is there. Funny - every single scientific organisation, nation, corporation in the world accept AGW as an undeniable FACT of nature.  No, they don't.  They accept it as a theory. Your church group doesn't seem to have many numbers attending on the weekend. you priests must be feeling very insecure I'm not a member of a church, sorry.  You've mistaken me for someone else again.   Your opinion, as you've bragged, is founded in igonorance and ego. You claim scepticism, but repeatedly prove otherwise. You lie, wholesale. What are you worth, greggerypeccary? Then again, I also put dead rats on my cereal in the morning

Yep, that would explain an awful lot.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 26^th, 2013 at 7:14pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 6:43pm: # wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 3:45pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 12:59pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 12:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 11:26am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 11:23am: Anthropogenic Global Warming is an undeniable verifiable FACT of nature. To challenge the validity of this simple scientific fact, you will require an alternative explanation WITH lots and lots of supporting data No, AGW is a theory. And, to support your theory, you'll need to provide some convincing evidence. Good luck. So you deny that human activities can warm the planet?   Absolutely not. The possibility is there. Funny - every single scientific organisation, nation, corporation in the world accept AGW as an undeniable FACT of nature.  No, they don't.  They accept it as a theory. Your church group doesn't seem to have many numbers attending on the weekend. you priests must be feeling very insecure I'm not a member of a church, sorry.  You've mistaken me for someone else again.   Your opinion, as you've bragged, is founded in igonorance and ego. You claim scepticism, but repeatedly prove otherwise. You lie, wholesale. What are you worth, greggerypeccary? Then again, I also put dead rats on my cereal in the morning Yep, that would explain an awful lot.

Did you think that a theory is needed for this explanation Mr Greggy?

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 26^th, 2013 at 7:13pm:

# wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 3:45pm: ... Your opinion, as you've bragged, is founded in igonorance and ego. You claim scepticism, but repeatedly prove otherwise. You lie, wholesale. What are you worth, greggerypeccary? Hmmm, criticism from one of the most worthless (and ignorant) trolls on this forum. ...

Criticism? No; just recounting your history.

If that distresses you, then you might be happier frequenting some other forum. One which runs on software that doesn't record your behaviour is such excruciating detail.

Speaking of history, yours shows compulsive trolling.

# wrote on Oct 29^th, 2013 at 7:23am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 7:13pm: # wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 3:45pm: ... Your opinion, as you've bragged, is founded in igonorance and ego. You claim scepticism, but repeatedly prove otherwise. You lie, wholesale. What are you worth, greggerypeccary? Hmmm, criticism from one of the most worthless (and ignorant) trolls on this forum. ... Criticism? No; just recounting your history.

History, along with science, is not one of your strong points.

Good on you for making an effort though.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 29^th, 2013 at 7:47am:

# wrote on Oct 29th, 2013 at 7:23am: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 7:13pm: # wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 3:45pm: ... Your opinion, as you've bragged, is founded in igonorance and ego. You claim scepticism, but repeatedly prove otherwise. You lie, wholesale. What are you worth, greggerypeccary? Hmmm, criticism from one of the most worthless (and ignorant) trolls on this forum. ... Criticism? No; just recounting your history. History, along with science, is not one of your strong points.

...you're starting to lose it Greggy - you're talking to yourself now...

See what happens when you attend those crack pot religious denialist church group meetings?

I warned you Greggy

you just wouldn't listen

there is only so much that I can do

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 29^th, 2013 at 11:19am:

- you're talking to yourself now...

No, but at least that would ensure intelligent conversation.

Over fishing will be a problem long before AGW takes effect.

Localised environmental degradation will become much more of a danger to life and the results will be seen much sooner than with AGW.

Too many people on the planet.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 29^th, 2013 at 7:47am:

# wrote on Oct 29th, 2013 at 7:23am: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 7:13pm: # wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 3:45pm: ... Your opinion, as you've bragged, is founded in igonorance and ego. You claim scepticism, but repeatedly prove otherwise. You lie, wholesale. What are you worth, greggerypeccary? Hmmm, criticism from one of the most worthless (and ignorant) trolls on this forum. ... Criticism? No; just recounting your history. History, along with science, is not one of your strong points. Good on you for making an effort though.

# wrote on Oct 29^th, 2013 at 7:23am:

... Speaking of history, yours shows compulsive trolling.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 29^th, 2013 at 11:24am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 29th, 2013 at 11:19am: - you're talking to yourself now... ... at least that would ensure intelligent conversation.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:56pm:

... I'm not adverse to onanism ...

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 29^th, 2013 at 11:24am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 29th, 2013 at 11:19am: - you're talking to yourself now... No, but at least that would ensure intelligent conversation.

talking to yourself AND delusional thoughts of grandeur

I would have that looked into Greggy - could get out of hand

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 30^th, 2013 at 8:59pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 29th, 2013 at 11:24am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 29th, 2013 at 11:19am: - you're talking to yourself now... No, but at least that would ensure intelligent conversation. talking to yourself AND delusional thoughts of grandeur I would have that looked into Greggy - could get out of hand

I reckon his problem is more with what's in hand*.
*
greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:56pm:

... I'm not adverse to onanism ...

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 30^th, 2013 at 8:59pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 29th, 2013 at 11:24am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 29th, 2013 at 11:19am: - you're talking to yourself now... No, but at least that would ensure intelligent conversation. ... delusional thoughts of grandeur

No delusions my friend.

# wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 10:36am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 30th, 2013 at 8:59pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 29th, 2013 at 11:24am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 29th, 2013 at 11:19am: - you're talking to yourself now... No, but at least that would ensure intelligent conversation. talking to yourself AND delusional thoughts of grandeur I would have that looked into Greggy - could get out of hand I reckon his problem is more with what's in hand*. * greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 5:56pm: ... I'm not adverse to onanism ...

Ah yes, the AGW alarmist who thinks that masturbation is somehow unusual.

What rock have you been living under?  Are you still under it?  Is your mother there with you?  Come out into the real world and experience life (before it gets too hot).

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 11:10am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 30th, 2013 at 8:59pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 29th, 2013 at 11:24am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 29th, 2013 at 11:19am: - you're talking to yourself now... No, but at least that would ensure intelligent conversation. ... delusional thoughts of grandeur No delusions my friend.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:56pm:

... I'm not adverse to onanism ...

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 11:12am:

# wrote on Oct 31st, 2013 at 10:36am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 30th, 2013 at 8:59pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 29th, 2013 at 11:24am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 29th, 2013 at 11:19am: - you're talking to yourself now... No, but at least that would ensure intelligent conversation. talking to yourself AND delusional thoughts of grandeur I would have that looked into Greggy - could get out of hand I reckon his problem is more with what's in hand*. * greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 5:56pm: ... I'm not adverse to onanism ... Ah yes, the AGW alarmist ...

While I agree that the inconvenient truth is alarming, if you ask your remedial English teacher, they'll tell you that justified alarm isn't alarmism. I'm just sceptical about your denialism.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 11:12am:

... who thinks that masturbation is somehow unusual. ...

Unusual, no. To excess, unhealthy. You have proven to be a compulsive wanker, after all.

Ain't it a bitch, how this forum's software records your every move?