View Full Version : Map shows toll on world's oceans


Knight-Dragon
Feb 14, 2008, 11:06 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7241428.stm

Only about 4% of the world's oceans remain undamaged by human activity, according to the first detailed global map of human impacts on the seas.

A study in Science journal says climate change, fishing, pollution and other human factors have exacted a heavy toll on almost half of the marine waters.

Only remote icy areas near the poles are relatively pristine, but they face threats as ice sheets melt, it warns.

The authors say the data is a "wake-up call" to policymakers.

Lead scientist, Dr Benjamin Halpern, of the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis in Santa Barbara, US, said humans were having a major impact on the oceans and the marine ecosystems within them.

"In the past, many studies have shown the impact of individual activities," he said. "But here for the first time we have produced a global map of all of these different activities layered on top of each other so that we can get this big picture of the overall impact that humans are having rather than just single impacts."

Co-author Dr Mark Spalding told BBC News that the map was the first attempt to describe and quantify the combined threats facing the world's oceans from human factors, ranging from commercial shipping to over-fishing.

"There's an element of wake-up call when you get maps like this," he said. "Human threats are all pervasive across the world's oceans.

"The map is an impetus for action, I think that it is a real signal to roll up our sleeves and start managing our coast and oceans."

Complex model

The international team of 20 scientists in the US, Canada and UK built a complex model to handle large amounts of information on 17 different human threats.

The researchers divided the world's oceans into 1km-square sections and examined all real data available on how humankind is influencing the marine environment.

They then calculated "human impact scores" for each location, presenting this as a global map of the toll people have exacted on the seas.

The scientists say they were shocked by the findings.

"I think the big surprise from all of this was seeing what the complete coverage of human impacts was," said Dr Spalding, senior marine scientist at The Nature Conservancy, a conservation group in Newmarket, UK. "There's nowhere really that escaped. It's quite a shocking map to see."

He said the two biggest drivers in destroying marine habitats were climate change and over-fishing.

"Out on the high seas, climate change and fishing were far and away the strongest influences," he explained. "The least impacted areas are the polar regions but they are not untouched."

Clear message

The scientists hope the map will be used to prioritise marine conservation efforts.

Andrew Rosenberg, a professor of natural resources at the University of New Hampshire, US, who was not part of the study, said policymakers could no longer focus on fishing or pollution as if they were separate effects.

"These human impacts overlap in space and time, and in far too many cases the magnitude is frighteningly high," he said.

"The message for policymakers seems clear to me: conservation action that cuts across the whole set of human impacts is needed now in many places around the globe."

The findings of the study were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Boston, US.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44422000/jpg/_44422161_d35e9f33-d2fa-4bf3-a36c-890fd810efcd.jpg

Julian Delphiki
Feb 15, 2008, 01:14 AM
Our Baltic sea is one the most screwed seas :(.

Ball Lightning
Feb 15, 2008, 02:45 AM
And antartica is the only untouched waters, and lets hope it stays that way.

StarWorms
Feb 16, 2008, 03:59 PM
I'd like to know what factors they used. Ice caps are melting, and yet it doesn't seem to show on the image. Was this taken into account, or is this just where all the pollution is?

ainwood
Feb 16, 2008, 04:42 PM
I'd like to know what factors they used. Ice caps are melting, and yet it doesn't seem to show on the image. Was this taken into account, or is this just where all the pollution is?
The south pole has a continent under the majority of the ice cap. The north pole receded in summer, but it back this winter.

StarWorms
Feb 16, 2008, 06:14 PM
The south pole has a continent under the majority of the ice cap. The north pole receded in summer, but it back this winter.The north pole ice is melting though. Sure there will be fluctuations, but generally year on year, it is getting thinner.

Souron
Feb 16, 2008, 06:35 PM
While I agree that we should probably curb our effect on the environment, this map does not do much to add to that belief.

This map would be useful in determining where we need to change, but being an arbitrary scale, with an arbitrary definition of "high impact", it doesn't tell us anything about our total impact on the environment. I'm not even sure that the fact that most of the map is yellow is a bad thing. Having more localized damage could be worse then having the current levels of very widespread damage.

Narz
Feb 16, 2008, 10:09 PM
We're so screwed.

We read articles like this everyday but they seem abstract, like we're reading about some other planet. The massive action required simply won't be taken. Until it's too late. And then it still won't be taken. We'll be too busy trying to survive. Kind of makes me sad to think about. :(

ainwood
Feb 16, 2008, 10:46 PM
The north pole ice is melting though. Sure there will be fluctuations, but generally year on year, it is getting thinner.
Most of the 'concern' appears to be that the ice disappearing means that less energy is radiated back into space, hence global warming becomes self-increasing (unstable system).

There was a lot of consternation over 2005-2007, because the sea ice cover appeared to be getting much, much smaller:

Note the massive dip in end summer 2007 (this graph doesn't have 2008 included)
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg

However, in winter 2008, the sea ice cover is back nearly to the 'normal' levels:

In particular, note the red line at the bottom, which shows the difference between the cover and the average since 1979.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg

Unfortunately, these graphs do have a bit of a statistical fallacy in them, in that lower coverage lowers the average, which makes the anomaly look less (which I believe is part of the reason why the 'hockeystick' model was quietly dropped)


And another graph that is useful: The global sea-ice coverage:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

This shows that global sea ice was generally well below average for the last three year, although in winter 2008, it is actually back up above average.

Ball Lightning
Feb 17, 2008, 01:02 AM
The Problem about your second graph is that it is GLOBAL sea ice, so it cannot correctly represent the artic, while your first graph is of a year which is small in time for whether artic is melting faster then it rebuilds in winter.

The news headlines which come out about artic sea ice is using data which looks at certain days year by year.

ainwood
Feb 17, 2008, 02:49 PM
The Problem about your second graph is that it is GLOBAL sea ice, so it cannot correctly represent the artic, The second graph is for arctic sea ice, and it shows the data post 2007 (where the first graph gets chopped-off) in detail.

The third graph is for global sea ice, and I clearly noted that.

while your first graph is of a year which is small in time for whether artic is melting faster then it rebuilds in winter.The first graph shows sea ice coverage seasonally since 1979.

The news headlines which come out about artic sea ice is using data which looks at certain days year by year.And why is that any more valid than one that shows actual sea-ice coverage across the entire year?

GoodGame
Feb 24, 2008, 02:12 PM
How about the that Aral sea?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea

StarWorms
Feb 24, 2008, 03:31 PM
Aral Sea does not an ocean make.

CivGeneral
Feb 24, 2008, 04:13 PM
The Ocean is an enigma. It's both our pantry and our toilet! :ack:

taillesskangaru
Feb 29, 2008, 04:44 AM
How about the that Aral sea?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea

The Aral Sea dried up because all the water was siphoned off by Soviet Kazakhstan and Soviet Uzbekistan for growing cotton.

The Ocean is an enigma. It's both our pantry and our toilet!

Well that can't be healthy. Let's face it we got a serious situation on our hands.

Most people on CFC is in the 13 - 25 age group. So we are the generation who's going to be responsible for the clean-up. Nice to know.

Dubai Vol
Feb 29, 2008, 06:23 PM
More good news:
Big-Fish Stocks Fall 90 Percent Since 1950, Study Says

National Geographic News
May 15, 2003

Only 10 percent of all large fish—both open ocean species including tuna, swordfish, marlin and the large groundfish such as cod, halibut, skates and flounder—are left in the sea, according to research published in today's issue of the scientific journal Nature.
And that report is 5 years old. Any bets on whether things are better or worse now?

Dubai Vol
Feb 29, 2008, 06:29 PM
Better still:

World's Fish Supply Running Out, Researchers Warn

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 3, 2006

An international group of ecologists and economists warned yesterday that the world will run out of seafood by 2048 if steep declines in marine species continue at current rates

Best of all:

In 12 marine ecosystems surveyed, they found that a decline in biodiversity of 50 percent or more cut the number of viable fisheries by 33 percent, reduced nursery habitats by 69 percent and cut the ocean's capacity to filter and detoxify contaminants by 63 percent.

In the Chesapeake Bay, where the collapse of the oyster fishery has reverberated across the ecosystem. In 1880, there were enough oysters to filter all the water in the bay in three days; by 1988, it took more than a year for the remaining oysters to accomplish the same task.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/02/AR2006110200913_2.html

Narz
Feb 29, 2008, 09:29 PM
See post #8. :undecide: